Ban RIP threads in Politics

Laminations

Are they not against forum charter anyway? There is no point of discussion and no opinion usually given in the OP. They more likely stem from a twitter like post announcing a death, followed by pages of posters parroting RIP. There are better ways to show your condolences and certainly more appropriate ways - like signing the book of condolences for example.

I'm an ardent anti FF poster, I think they've been disastrous for this country but I can still obviously see the sadness in a death. Brian Lenihan was a nice guy, personally and politically, but his decisions within government and the FF party have been detrimental to our sovereign and economic standing. I would however NEVER welcome his death - he is not in the same league or even the same game as Osama bin Laden. It is sad for his family and friends and anyone who knows what a bastard cancer is.

But RIP threads serve little purpose on a politics forum. Even a deaths and notices stick thread where people can thank an announcement to share their condolences would seem more appropriate, and I often think people rush to announce deaths on here to morbidly 'collect' thanks.

Previously other types of monotone threads have been started by posters on a topic and periodically supported by mods. An example being the 'positive things FF has done'. I can remember being warned when actually debating these positives by introducing counteracting negative policies which outweigh those positives. Threads need to allow for debate, so in the FF example it's better to debate all of the actions of The party (on a particular topic) and then weigh up the positives and negatives.

I don't really agree with cutting critical threads the very minute someone dies but on this forum it seems more appropriate to discuss a politicians legacy / their constituency work / their agreements and disagreements with party line etc.. and in the case of Brian Lenihan, the state of cancer care and the funding of cancer research in this country would be a nice topic. So by all means say 'RIP', acknowledge the human side to political life but please add some content to your post and not revise the past political careers of now dead politicians to paint them as great thinkers and patriots.

Discuss.

racso1975

Laminations wrote: »

Are they not against forum charter anyway? There is no point of discussion and no opinion usually given in the OP. They more likely stem from a twitter like post announcing a death, followed by pages of posters parroting RIP. There are better ways to show your condolences and certainly more appropriate ways - like signing the book of condolences for example.

I'm an ardent anti FF poster, I think they've been disastrous for this country but I can still obviously see the sadness in a death. Brian Lenihan was a nice guy, personally and politically, but his decisions within government and the FF party have been detrimental to our sovereign and economic standing. I would however NEVER welcome his death - he is not in the same league or even the same game as Osama bin Laden. It is sad for his family and friends and anyone who knows what a bastard cancer is.

But RIP threads serve little purpose on a politics forum. Even a deaths and notices stick thread where people can thank an announcement to share their condolences would seem more appropriate, and I often think people rush to announce deaths on here to morbidly 'collect' thanks.

Previously other types of monotone threads have been started by posters on a topic and periodically supported by mods. An example being the 'positive things FF has done'. I can remember being warned when actually debating these positives by introducing counteracting negative policies which outweigh those positives. Threads need to allow for debate, so in the FF example it's better to debate all of the actions of The party (on a particular topic) and then weigh up the positives and negatives.

I don't really agree with cutting critical threads the very minute someone dies but on this forum it seems more appropriate to discuss a politicians legacy / their constituency work / their agreements and disagreements with party line etc.. and in the case of Brian Lenihan, the state of cancer care and the funding of cancer research in this country would be a nice topic. So by all means say 'RIP', acknowledge the human side to political life but please add some content to your post and not revise the past political careers of now dead politicians to paint them as great thinkers and patriots.

Discuss. :rolleyes:

The above should really be posted in feedback/ site suggestions i fail to see how the banning of rip threads is in anyway political.

MagicMarker

If we ban them can we open up an RIP thread for RIP threads?

Laminations

racso1975 wrote: »

The above should really be posted in feedback/ site suggestions i fail to see how the banning of rip threads is in anyway political.

Good point

AlekSmart

Good post Laminations. +1

Sir Oxman

+1
RIP threads on controversial figures such as BL cause a lot of work for the mods for a start.

If they are to continue then Laminations idea of a sticky with the option to thank only should be considered, I'd extend that to places like AH as well.
The current RIP thead for BL was a classic example of RIPs being accompanied by complete hyperbole and exaggeration of BL's abilities and past actions which in turn, bait another group of members who, already being assaulted by non-stop tv/radio/newspapers about the greatness of the deceased, feel the need to balance the hyperbole resulting in bans/disruption etc and that old favourite 'have some respect' charge being thrown around.
Quite a large amount of RIP'ers actually ruined that RIP thread by bringing in exultant praise for BL's political decisions based solely on the fact the poor man was suffering with a terminal illness - why they weren't brought to task for that I don't know.

A closed thanks only sticky until the burial of whoever it is that has passed away followed by a legacy thread could be a solution.

I know I felt I had to bite my lip quite a lot since Friday.
Maybe, feedback is the correct place for this thread.

raymon

I agree totally.

Rip threads should not be in a politics debating forum.

Otherwise people will debate politics on the man's grave.

Nodin

Theres a thread for this sort of thing
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=97080&page=33

RDM_83 again

Completely agree, posted last March in the thread Nodin indicated and didn't get a single reply

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm just wondering, where do the RIP threads really fit in the politics forum? the one currently active does not meat any of the posting a new thread guidelines.

Not meaning to be insensitive but perhaps there would be a more appropriate forum for them?

Liam Byrne

Well said, Laminations!

Listening to the radio yesterday made me puke...."he was very straight" - yeah luv, let's ignore the claims about Lehmans, cheapest bailouts and the IMF.

I actually posted on FB to counter this somehow, but I merely posted "they say not to speak ill of the dead so I'll say nothing", which, given my opinion of the man's politics, was a mark of respect in itself.

I was flamed by a couple of known supporters, despite my implied restraint.

But the politics forum is meant to be about debate and challenges; and as Laminations said above a simple RIP as a man shouldn't go astray, the delusion cannot go unchallenged, meaning that they create a catch 22.

RIP the man, but his decisions and policies and legacy should not be allowed to be swept under the carpet.

later12

I dont know. I have always thought that death was just something we do extremely well in Ireland. And perhaps there was more respect for Lenihan as a public figure than you might have imagined, certainly judging by the condolences thread a lot of people respected his commitment to staying on even in ill health, even if they disagreed with his policy.

I do not see why anybody would have a problem with condolences threads. From what I see of my limited time on boards.ie, they are part of the culture here and I cant see why someone would feel such a thread detracts from a forum. I suspect it has a little more to do with not liking the man as opposed to not liking the thread.

Why not just say so?

listermint

Thread smacks of 'im not racist but'


either way, its not for this forum and would have thought feedback was the appropriate place as stated above.

Liam Byrne

later10 wrote: »

I dont know. I have always thought that death was just something we do extremely well in Ireland. And perhaps there was more respect for Lenihan as a public figure than you might have imagined, certainly judging by the condolences thread a lot of people respected his commitment to staying on even in ill health, even if they disagreed with his policy.

I do not see why anybody would have a problem with condolences threads. From what I see of my limited time on boards.ie, they are part of the culture here and I cant see why someone would feel such a thread detracts from a forum. I suspect it has a little more to do with not liking the man as opposed to not liking the thread.

Why not just say so?

That's a bit unfair, later10.....you're projecting a supposition / assumption that isn't there.

When supporters wax lyrical about non-existent attributes, THEN the thread gets hated, not before.

So it might make sense for the RIPs for the man to be in Humanities or somewhere, excluding all aspects - positive and negative - of the profession and performance.

K-9

They probably are a bit pointless but still how hard is it to respect the fact it's a condolence thread.

There have been thousands of threads to lambast him while he was alive and no doubt thousands in the future.

Is it too much to ask for one just to post condolences? So what if a few went overboard with praise? Is it that hard not to get in a last word?

Best approach I think is a RIP and a legacy thread, same happened with Garret.

later12

Liam Byrne wrote: »

When supporters wax lyrical about non-existent attributes, THEN the thread gets hated, not before.

Exactly - so it is about the indivdual, not the actual fact of having an RIP thread, perhaps.

So it might make sense for the RIPs for the man to be in Humanities or somewhere, excluding all aspects - positive and negative - of the profession and performance.

Why humanities? Humanities is designed just as much for debate as politics, I would have thought.

For a man who has probably got a mention every day since the crisis deepened here on the politics forum, and whose policies have received so much indepth analysis (nd some not so indepth), I think it is appropriate that those people who have paid so much attention to Brian Lenihan throughout the crisis have some sort of opportunity to offer regret at his death - even if these people were not on Lenihans side of the political fence. Personally I like the fact that the forum offers this opportunity, I do not think politics always has to be about debate and point scoring.

Who really gets offended, or put out, by RIP threads? It isnt as though they clog up the forum.

Eliot Rosewater

I'd be interested in hearing why there wasn't a similar Feedback thread over Garret Fitzgerald's RIP thread. Like later10, I have my suspicions that the political figure involved here is as much the issue as RIP threads themselves.

I think the solution that eventually came about is the best one: a condolences thread for those (numerous posters) who wish to express them, and a legacy thread for those who wish to discuss his legacy. Having one single condolences thread doesn't clog up the forum, it doesn't bring the standard of the forum down by any means, and it is clearly something posters want.

gambiaman wrote: »

The current RIP thead for BL was a classic example of RIPs being accompanied by complete hyperbole and exaggeration of BL's abilities and past actions which in turn, bait another group of members who, already being assaulted by non-stop tv/radio/newspapers about the greatness of the deceased, feel the need to balance the hyperbole resulting in bans/disruption etc and that old favourite 'have some respect' charge being thrown around.

It's not baiting because there's no intent to get a response out of anyone. The people who posted in the the thread merely wanted to offer condolences. I think any suggestion to the contrary is just a symptom of this annoying "FF are the devils of everything" perpetual-outrage culture that has unfortunately plagued Irish political discussion for the past year or two. A bit of context wouldn't go astray. A human being has died, after all. It's very natural for people to offer condolences.

Laminations

later10 wrote: »

I suspect it has a little more to do with not liking the man as opposed to not liking the thread.

Why not just say so?

Because it's not about not liking the person and phrasing the accusation as a 'suspicion' doesn't stop it being ad hominem. Debate the post and not the poster. I feel the same way about any RIP thread. This particular RIP thread moved me to post, not because of the person who was being remembered but because of the content - but generally RIP threads are contentless and therefore unsuitable for the politics forum. You can acknowledge the sadness of a persons passing without reverting to revisionism of their career and the decisions that they made. If people insist on having RIP threads then like I suggested a thanks system on a specified sticky would avoid comments whether they be political revisionism or crass remarks bordering on celebration.

My point is all of these RIP threads breach the forum charter. My thread was inappropriate for the forum and was moved - there is either consistency in the modding or there isn't.

On the thread Nodin linked to a mod defended these threads because there is 'demand for them'. I've seen plenty of hot or lengthy threads being closed regardless of the obvious demand because they were breaching forum rules. Citing populism as the reason for their acceptance on the forum is quite plainly inconsistent.

Sand

K-9 wrote: »

They probably are a bit pointless but still how hard is it to respect the fact it's a condolence thread.

Im not sure - why do people not restrain themselves to merely posting condolences?

Like others Ive had to bite my tongue when people cant post condolences without posting nonsense that so and so was a great statesman, a shining beacon of truth and justice, a terrible loss to the Irish people, courageous in representing Ireland and so on. Those are all political statements, but its only when people are provoked into disagreeing with them that its suddenly objectionable to bring politics onto the thread.

People dont seem to mind people discussing politics on condolence threads. What they mind is people passing negative political judgements on condolence threads.

If a condolence thread is to have a charmed life where it is immune to the normal rule of only posting positions that you are willing to defend, then it needs to be a proper condolence thread without any political judgements, positive or negative.

After all, how hard is it to post "RIP, thinking of his family" and leave an individuals public record to another thread?

@Elliot Rosewater

I'd be interested in hearing why there wasn't a similar Feedback thread over Garret Fitzgerald's RIP thread.

I dont know about that - given his record in office and recent interventions to try undermine criticism of Lenihans disastrous policies Id say more than a few posts were drafted, then reconsidered.

As RDM pointed out, this issue was raised last year. The recent death of Fitzgerald, followed swiftly by the death of Lenihan might have meant that what might have been dismissed as a one off breakout of dellusion has been raised again in short succession. Hence the rising prominence of the issue.

Sir Oxman

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing why there wasn't a similar Feedback thread over Garret Fitzgerald's RIP thread. Like later10, I have my suspicions that the political figure involved here is as much the issue as RIP threads themselves.

I think the solution that eventually came about is the best one: a condolences thread for those (numerous posters) who wish to express them, and a legacy thread for those who wish to discuss his legacy. Having one single condolences thread doesn't clog up the forum, it doesn't bring the standard of the forum down by any means, and it is clearly something posters want.



It's not baiting because there's no intent to get a response out of anyone. The people who posted in the the thread merely wanted to offer condolences. I think any suggestion to the contrary is just a symptom of this annoying "FF are the devils of everything" perpetual-outrage culture that has unfortunately plagued Irish political discussion for the past year or two. A bit of context wouldn't go astray. A human being has died, after all. It's very natural for people to offer condolences.

But a condolence thread should be just that, a place to pay condolences and not a sanctuary for one side of a debate over the deceased's public legacy whether the intent to bait is there or not.
This was clearly not observed in the BL RIP thread.

I see Sand posted a very good argument in the politics discussion of rules thread about this issue.

later12

Laminations wrote: »

Because it's not about not liking the person and phrasing the accusation as a 'suspicion' doesn't stop it being ad hominem. Debate the post and not the poster.

Notify a moderator, not me. I am saying that I would suspect (adj: suspicious; or to be suspicious of sth.) that sudden condemnation of RIP threads actually relate to dislike of Brian Lenihan as opposed to dislike of RIP threads in the politics forum. I think that's a reasonable suggestion, not an attack on you or any other poster.

I feel the same way about any RIP thread. This particular RIP thread moved me to post, not because of the person who was being remembered but because of the content - but generally RIP threads are contentless and therefore unsuitable for the politics forum.

I guess I just don't see the harm. Typically threads without any material content are there to lower the tone or create a hullabaloo about some controversy without any factual basis. I don't think a simple RIP thread needs to get lumped in with those. I think it's reasonable that people who spend days and weeks and months debating a man's policies and measures get to express some regret at his death.

Dudess

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing why there wasn't a similar Feedback thread over Garret Fitzgerald's RIP thread.

Well there was a now locked thread started by someone who took issue with Brian Lenihan - it was a "It's a terrible tragedy, and condolences to his loved ones, but let's be honest" kinda thing. A RIP forum, which by its nature would not facilitate discussion, would eliminate problematic stuff like that.

K-9

Sand wrote: »

Im not sure - why do people not restrain themselves to merely posting condolences?

Some of the praise was a bit OTT but that tends to happen when politicians pass away, seen it with Garret too.

Plenty of posters respectfully said they didn't agree with his decisions but could add their condolences. I don't really see the need to train wreck condolence threads, it's a bit attention seeking and thanks whoring to me tbh.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing why there wasn't a similar Feedback thread over Garret Fitzgerald's RIP thread.

Well i for one was busy. If you cannot see that this is an issue about modding (consistency of applying forum rules and allowing a situation where one sided positive (and untruthful) comments go unchallenged) and not about Brian Lenihan then you cannot see my point.

Like later10, I have my suspicions that the political figure involved here is as much the issue as RIP threads themselves.

Your suspicion is wrong. The issue is solely with the manner in which condolences are shown, which just happened to show itself as wholly inappropriate for the recently bereaved but is open to abuse for any RIP. Ive already suggested an alternative way to do condolence threads (via thanks with no superfluous positive or negative comment) and I'd add my RIP for Brian Lenihan. Your 'suspicions' are a low blow. Like painting a poster who suggests the welfare system is broken as a racist because the case that highlighted the faults in the system involved an immigrant.

later10 wrote: »

Notify a moderator, not me.

As you can see a mod has also played the player and not the ball. My post was not a threat of reporting you, I was highlighting the incorrect target in the sights of your reply. Take BL out of this and simply defend RIP threads (which allow all positive comment however fanciful and no means for challenging untruths)

southsiderosie

later10 wrote: »

Who really gets offended, or put out, by RIP threads? It isnt as though they clog up the forum.

Personally I think they are stupid, particularly in the Politics forum. But if we are going to have them, then they need to be open for discussion like any other thread in politics, or they need to be totally closed to discussion of someone's political legacy. As it stands right now - i.e., with only positive comments on political legacies deemed appropriate - they are little more than an institutionalized circle jerk.

Sand wrote: »

People dont seem to mind people discussing politics on condolence threads. What they mind is people passing negative political judgements on condolence threads.

If a condolence thread is to have a charmed life where it is immune to the normal rule of only posting positions that you are willing to defend, then it needs to be a proper condolence thread without any political judgements, positive or negative.

After all, how hard is it to post "RIP, thinking of his family" and leave an individuals public record to another thread?

Amen.

starbelgrade

The only real solution to the problem is to have an RIP/ Condolences forum. In Politics, the debate is cut in the RIP forums & in After Hours, you're not allowed have any craic in the RIP forums... and to me debate in Politics & craic in After Hours is the basis for each forum. It's their whole raison d'être.
However, you can't ignore the fact that when someone dies, people wish to express their condolences - so let it be done in a forum set up for that purpose & where there are strict ground rules in regards to what people can & cannot post.That way, you kill two birds with one stone.

Now, where do I start a condolences thread for two dead birds?

dr.bollocko

Ban all RIP threads because in these threads I am not allowed to bash the recently deceased with impunity.

Bit sick innit?

twinQuins

Not really.

Imagine creating a thread where you were only allowed bash a highly contentious figure - and that's just it, these people are not "Joe Soaps" they're figures where discussion is often highly polarised. Wouldn't it just be a troll-fest?

It's basically giving one side carte blanche to rile up the other side, knowing if they step out of line they'll be banned.

At least, that's the problem I see with it.

K-9

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Ban all RIP threads because in these threads I am not allowed to bash the recently deceased with impunity.

Bit sick innit?

We now have a busy legacy thread with plenty of bashing and the OP still feels the need to post in the RIP thread to make a point.

Plenty of posters were able to criticise him on the RIP thread but still be respectful. I don't really see the need to knock him when there already is a thread to do it and it's pretty obvious he made massive mistakes, popular and thanks gathering that they maybe.

P. Breathnach

K-9 wrote: »

We now have a busy legacy thread with plenty of bashing ...

We do. And it's remarkably unpleasant, with a number of people rejoicing his death. The thread was created by the mods, who seem to have put their hands in their pockets and walked off whistling, pretending that the ensuing nastiness had nothing to do with them.

Crystalset

Repetition, deviation but unfortunately no hesitation. Yes, let this thread be the death knell for political RIPs.

dr.bollocko

P. Breathnach wrote: »

We do. And it's remarkably unpleasant, with a number of people rejoicing his death. The thread was created by the mods, who seem to have put their hands in their pockets and walked off whistling, pretending that the ensuing nastiness had nothing to do with them.

Oooh jaysus. I got through 4 posts and:

"I only wish he didn't die and he continued on and suffer and suffer badly."
and similar.

His funeral is tomorrow and people are actually arguing for the right to post drivel like that before his body is even in the ground?

Laminations

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Oooh jaysus. I got through 4 posts and:

"I only wish he didn't die and he continued on and suffer and suffer badly."
and similar.

His funeral is tomorrow and people are actually arguing for the right to post drivel like that before his body is even in the ground?

Nobody is arguing for that, at least I'm not anyway. Nasty insensitive posts should be dealt with by the mods as per usual. We are arguing that if RIP threads are to continue then they should be just condolences and no political statements, positive or negative. The problem with allowing only positive is that you get hyperbolic untruths and political propaganda and revisionism. Nobody is arguing for the right to dance on a persons grave

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Laminations wrote: »

Nobody is arguing for that, at least I'm not anyway. Nasty insensitive posts should be dealt with by the mods as per usual. We are arguing that if RIP threads are to continue then they should be just condolences and no political statements, positive or negative. The problem with allowing only positive is that you get hyperbolic untruths and political propaganda and revisionism. Nobody is arguing for the right to dance on a persons grave

The point is, there were plenty of posts negative about him, "I didn't agree with his decisions" etc. and they were fine.

If somebody makes an OTT positive point on a condolence thread why the need to argue it?

Just take the fingers away from the keyboard and think, it's a condolence thread, the man has just died, we've had thousands of threads about him or discussing explaining his bad decisions, maybe I'll leave this one for a thread to say something nice about him?

Do we really need another one going through his bad decisions?

Still, we had one going through his bad decisions and his legacy if posters wanted that. I think the mods handled it well, though there seems to have been a lack of hands on deck. The thread should have been spotted quicker.

I think anybody criticising the legacy thread should also be warned in the interests of balance.

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why? What positive untruths are you going to say as a eulogy on her RIP thread? That she was a compassionate caring woman? I don't mind people giving her condolences but again revisionism of her political career should be excluded from any RIP thread and reserved for a legacy thread where it could be challenged and debated - within the rules of the forum i.e. No insensitive bloodthirsty remarks

Laminations

K-9 wrote: »

The point is, there were plenty of posts negative about him, "I didn't agree with his decisions" etc. and they were fine.

If somebody makes an OTT positive point on a condolence thread why the need to argue it?

Just take the fingers away from the keyboard and think, it's a condolence thread, the man has just died, we've had thousands of threads about him or discussing explaining his bad decisions, maybe I'll leave this one for a thread to say something nice about him?

Do we really need another one going through his bad decisions?

Still, we had one going through his bad decisions and his legacy if posters wanted that. I think the mods handled it well, though there seems to have been a lack of hands on deck. The thread should have been spotted quicker.

I think anybody criticising the legacy thread should also be warned in the interests of balance.

But it's a condolence thread. It's not the place to be making political statements all be they positive. Again I don't think people have a problem with saying nice things about the recently deceased - personally Brian Lenihan was a nice guy and an intelligent fella, hiss family and friends are hurting, it is a loss to his supporters and hd will be missed by many. Saying nice things is different from making comments on his political career and his decisions. Again you seem to be missing the point

The legacy thread is not 'one going through his bad decisions'. It's one going through his legacy, good and bad. And people are entitled to challenge any poster in that thread (i challenged the post given as an example by Dr.Bollocko) and the mods need to enforce forum rules on nasty posts.

The condolence thread is for condolences.
The legacy thread is for debate, positive and negative evaluations.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No you regard my argument as having a problem with anything positive that is said where my real issue is with untruths that are said and with political commentary and evaluation on a thread where it cannot be debated. I e just said above that I have no issue with people making positive personal comments about any politician but allowing political statements on a condolence thread is silly.

Hence, I asked what you would say about Margaret thatcher that'd be untrue that I'd have a problem with.

K-9

Laminations wrote: »

But it's a condolence thread. It's not the place to be making political statements all be they positive.

It's a condolence thread, you are going to get positive statements, hell, you even got negative ones but intelligently phrased ones.

In the Garret thread a couple of posters posted respectively about him in response to OTT positive stuff. Posters had the cop to go to a legacy thread and debate it and leave the RIP thread to condolences.

Again I don't think people have a problem with saying nice things about the recently deceased - personally Brian Lenihan was a nice guy and an intelligent fella, hiss family and friends are hurting, it is a loss to his supporters and hd will be missed by many. Saying nice things is different from making comments on his political career and his decisions. Again you seem to be missing the point

That's why you had a legacy thread on the day of his death. Why you felt the need to interject on the RIP thread when a legacy thread was set up and going, I don't know?

You had a thread to discuss his legacy.

The legacy thread is not 'one going through his bad decisions'. It's one going through his legacy, good and bad. And people are entitled to challenge any poster in that thread (i challenged the post given as an example by Dr.Bollocko) and the mods need to enforce forum rules on nasty posts.

Nope, people saying it's terrible to talk ill of the dead on a legacy thread are missing the point. Just as you are missing the point bringing up a feedback issue on a RIP thread.

The condolence thread is for condolences.
The legacy thread is for debate, positive and negative evaluations.

No, the condolence thread is for posters, regardless of politics and issues to post condolences. Even strong opponents could post respectfully. Supporters of his are obviously going to post a bit OTT.

It's a time to show respect. If not, post in the legacy thread.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LoLth

I think the clue is in the title of the thread "RIP" and "condolences" have connotations of respect and decency not "free for all".

Let me put this in a scenario:

a loved one close to you dies after a period of illness. Feeling sad you are browsing the internet one day and you come across a thread titled condolences or RIP and you start to read the posts by users that you've never met before offering their sympathies to the family and expressing their regret at the person's passing. Some even offer praise for the person which, even though you know it isnt maybe 100% deserved you still think is nice of them. Then a user posts that they were molested as a child by the person you cared about and a huge argument breaks out on thread with accusations and name calling and "proof" of X, Y or Z.

Who is being hurt by these comments? Not the dead person. the ones left behind are the only ones affected. its simple, refrain from posting nasty comments in a condolences/RIP thread out of common human decency. Tell the truth as you see it in a more appropriate place. If you feel so strongly that you cannot bring yourself to stem your negative opinion of the individual for the 5 minutes to takes to post a comment then the solution is simple, DONT POST.

Honestly, truth is good but there is a time and place for it. Refusing to tell an untruth is commendable, insisting on telling what you see as the painful truth no matter who the audience is or where the truth is being told is actually a selfish act as the only person getting any form of gratification is the person insisting on having their "truth" heard.

---

On legacy threads: there is going to be heated discussion on these threads. No matter what side you are on if you feel strongly about the actions of an individual the sentiment will be amplified by their passing. This should be taken into account by the moderators and allowances made for it. However abuse of a poster should still not be allowed and posters should remember that particularly vitriolic or bile filled posts say a lot more about you than they do about the subject of the discussion. Also, while you cant defame the dead, you can defame those still alive and you can be held accountable for abusing a poster. I would fully expect mods to enforce the rules covering abusive behaviour no matter what the thread or circumstances. Again the clue is in the title of the thread, "discussion" not "rant" or "soapbox".

lmaopml

I don't understand why anybody gets precious about an RIP thread. Fair enough if they were literally overtaking an entire forum. Afterall, it's not like voicing an opinion is banned on any other thread about the recently deceased in the same forum in relation to a topic at hand? An RIP thread is what it is........if people wax lyrical on it - so what? Wax cynical on another thread, that's not banned even if the body is still warm. Why so precious?

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not confusing statements of fact with statements of opinion, I'm suggesting the condolence threads in politics stick to statements of sympathy. People shouldnt be giving their opinion on the deseased's political career. I dont think it appropriate on a forum for debate that people have a carte blanche thread where they can offer opinion unchallenged. I'm not offended, I just don't think it has a place in the politics forum. It's nothing to do with Brian Lenihan either.

I posted this thread in politics to see if others felt the same, some do but it appears many don't (but I think most of those many have misinterpreted my point and focused on attacking me for having an issue with Brian Lenihan, which it's not). The thread was understandably moved to feedback and so I await the official line from the mods in politics and an explanation on how these threads fit with the forum charter - OP giving an opinion and thread being of discussion standard.
From what I've seen there is a difference of opinion amongst the mods with Scofflaw against such threads (in their current form) and Elliot for them.

I'll not say anything else on the issue. I'll wait til another politician dies so I can bring up my concerns about political opinion on a condolence thread when you are disarmed of the personal attacks on me that this is to do with Brian Lenihan.

I'm amazed how many people are taking this up wrong - e.g. LoLth has misinterpreted my entire argument and proceeded to write a lengthy reply against a strawman. It was never about the right to say nasty things about someone on their RIP thread, nor was it about being allowed debate on their RIP thread, it was about keeping offers of sympathy and condolence on an RIP thread to offers of sympathy and condolence.

Laminations

lmaopml wrote: »

..if people wax lyrical on it - so what?

It's the politics forum. It shouldn't be a place to wax lyrical on political decisions. It's that simple. There are countless other forums to do such and I'm not against offering condolences. Anyway I'll await the official mod position

Scofflaw

The mod position is obviously something that requires a consensus decision. My personal view is that I agree with the basic point Laminations is making - you should not be able to use a condolences thread for a politician to make unchallenged positive statements about their political decisions.

Therefore, my personal view is that a condolences thread should - even in Politics - restrict itself to comments on a personal level. The boundary is obviously going to be very fuzzy, though - if someone says "most intelligent politician in the Dáil" they may well think of that as a comment on his personal attributes, forgetting that it's a judgement on all the other member of the Dáil, and therefore a political comment. "A very intelligent man" is acceptable - while the comment it invites "oh, yeah? then why did he..." is unacceptable.

I can appreciate, however, that those who would like to be able to make a positive statement in respect of the dead person's political career - because they genuinely believe them to have done positive things - would like to be able to do so without being barracked for it, and regard the ability to say such things without being barracked as part and parcel of offering their condolences. And that's the cultural norm, which is very strong in Ireland - to mention only the good, not the bad, for a vaguely defined period after the actual death.

So there's unlikely to be a solution that satisfies everybody.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not necessarily, because that's a line that can easily be policed. "He was a good man" is a pretty anodyne statement, and "he will be missed" is no more than the truth. The response, on the other hand, is clearly unacceptable, even to me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not necessarily, because that's a line that can easily be policed. "He was a good man" is a pretty anodyne statement, and "he will be missed" is no more than the truth. The response, on the other hand, is clearly unacceptable, even to me.

The criteria of acceptability are quite difficult to grasp, given that it seems okay to say "I for one am not sorry to see the back of him".

It is also disappointing that the mods are not keeping a close eye on the BL legacy thread that one of them set up with that as part of the opening post. Some of the content in it is seriously ugly.

All in the interest of balance, I suppose.

Laminations

The point I'm making about RIP threads does not mean I think nasty comments within these threads or outside of these threads are acceptable. I'm guessing the mods (and Scofflaw) don't either and will sift through the legacy thread when they have time. I have reported that entire thread. It is nothing to do with balance.

In my opinion RIP threads should be limited to sympaties and condolences. Legacy threads should be about political comment, evaluation and debate - but sticking to usual forum rules. I don't agree with the sentiments expressed

Sand

@LoLth

a loved one close to you dies after a period of illness. Feeling sad you are browsing the internet one day and you come across a thread titled condolences or RIP and you start to read the posts by users that you've never met before offering their sympathies to the family and expressing their regret at the person's passing. Some even offer praise for the person which, even though you know it isnt maybe 100% deserved you still think is nice of them. Then a user posts that they were molested as a child by the person you cared about and a huge argument breaks out on thread with accusations and name calling and "proof" of X, Y or Z.

Who is being hurt by these comments? Not the dead person. the ones left behind are the only ones affected. its simple, refrain from posting nasty comments in a condolences/RIP thread out of common human decency. Tell the truth as you see it in a more appropriate place. If you feel so strongly that you cannot bring yourself to stem your negative opinion of the individual for the 5 minutes to takes to post a comment then the solution is simple, DONT POST.

Honestly, truth is good but there is a time and place for it. Refusing to tell an untruth is commendable, insisting on telling what you see as the painful truth no matter who the audience is or where the truth is being told is actually a selfish act as the only person getting any form of gratification is the person insisting on having their "truth" heard.

Yikes...if anyone had tried to make that analogy (bad politician=paedophile) as a negative theyd have been lynched for dismissing the seriousness of child abuse.

But seeing as you introduced the concept, lets look at the same event from a different angle.

Lets say your ignorantly truthful poster is browsing the internet, and they come across a RIP/condolence thread. Theyre shocked to realise the deceased person is someone who molested them when they were a child. They see post after post praising the individual for their admirable qualities and expressing regret. Upset and furious, the poster intervenes to say that the deceased individual was a child abuser, and that he/she does not deserve any of the praise given to them.

What then? Is the victim of the child abuser expected to shut up and stop upsetting the family? They should just say nothing at all if they cant say anything nice about the recently dead? They should just nod and say through gritted teeth "Yes, he/she was great with kids"?

All in all though - its a pretty bad analogy.

People trying to engage in revisionism, trying to paint a given person or individual as some sort of saint or statesman or patriot is going to lead to comment on a politics forum. Some of that will be positive, some negative - it can be entirely avoided if people simply restrain themselves to expressing their sympathies.

Im not sure why people are so bent on trying to express their political views, using a grieving family as a human shield - "Dont disagree with me, you'll upset the family!"

@P. Breathnach

The criteria of acceptability are quite difficult to grasp, given that it seems okay to say "I for one am not sorry to see the back of him".

If its fair enough to say "he will be missed" given its relatively true, then its equally fair enough to point out that you wont miss him?

Not nice, but equally fair.

Of course, the solution would be for everyone to restrain themselves to expressing their sympathies without attempting to write the individuals political/public epitaph.

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

...
If its fair enough to say "he will be missed" given its relatively true, then its equally fair enough to point out that you wont miss him?

Not nice, but equally fair.
...

That seems to be sort of balance that the mods want struck:
A says "I am sorry he is dead".
B responds "Well, I'm glad he died".

There is a reason why some streets are deemed suitable only for one-way traffic.