Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Ban RIP threads in Politics

245

Comments

  • #2


    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


  • #2


    This post has been deleted.


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    This post has been deleted.


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    This post has been deleted.


  • #2


    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".


  • #2


    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?


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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


  • #2


    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


  • #2


    This post has been deleted.


  • #2


    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


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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


  • #2


    @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.


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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.

    It's a little unfair to tar all the mods with my brush - I think I'm the only mod who feels inappropriately laissez-faire about these things.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #2


    Double post.


  • #2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    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

    Making rules too tight may be very hard to police for mods - Although I suppose all RIP threads are. Gerry Ryans on AH must have been a nightmare.

    Still, I think if a Politician dies than it's ok to have an RIP thread on Politics, and it would be really odd if they weren't allowed. Same way as if it was a musician you would see one on the relevant board - and AH's which seems to get them for everybody one way or the other...lol...

    I wouldn't like to see them banned or anything. I can understand that people shouldn't use them to make very massive political statements, which is at the discretion of the moderators - however others should be able to grasp that it's all in the title of a thread, and not to get their knickers twisted too much over a few lovey dovey words. Exercise a bit of restraint, count to ten, hold their breath..lol........they could always express themselves on a more appropriate thread title.

    Most RIP threads rise and fall down the list fairly pronto if there are no arguements.

    Think B.Lenihans was always going to be volatile though...


  • #2


    @Sand: the point I was making is that while a poster might not agree with praise being given to the deceased, there is a time and place to post their objections and a RIP/condolence thread it NOT the place.

    A discussion on the deceased's work or their life, depending on the objection, sure, fire away in a constructive, non-ranty manner.

    A thread specifically to offer sympathies or condolences to the deceased's loved ones or to post something positive about the deceased is an appropriate platform.

    Just like we dont allow atheists to post their objection to the existanece of God in the Christianity forum but we dont have any issue with their posting such material in the Atheist and Agnostic forum.

    It really isnt just a boards.ie rule or a mod's arbitrary decision, its more of a common decency affair and would imho fall well within the domain of the "dont be a dick" rule.

    (as an aside, I only used child molestation as an example because I wanted something that no-one in their right mind would condone to use as an example. I was in no way belittling the severity of the act or lessenign the plight of victims of child abuse).


  • #2


    @LoLth
    Just like we dont allow atheists to post their objection to the existanece of God in the Christianity forum but we dont have any issue with their posting such material in the Atheist and Agnostic forum.

    But thats the thing - posting political opinions in the politics forum whilst expecting no dispute or disagreement is exactly the wrong place to attempt to do so. Much as attempting to disprove the existence of God on the Christianity forum is exactly the wrong place to do so. For exactly the same reason. The Politics forum isnt for posting RIP threads, its for discussing politics. I dont have any problems with RIP threads as such, but people trying to post political views whilst using a grieving family as cover is objectionable, and never going to result in anything other than a carcrash of a thread.

    And people *are* biting their tongues when it comes to these threads where absolute and complete nonsense is posted as gospel about people who (in their public/political careers) were at best incompetent, and at worst corrupt. In the most recent example, Lenihan might have been a fine family man, a great laugh and kind and generous in his personal dealings but he was an incompetent and dishonest Minister for Finance and his lack of courage and forsight in September 2008 has doomed this country for a decade or more. Its not by chance he was named the worst MoF in Europe for 2 years running. History didnt change simply because Lenihan died.

    I have no problem with people expressing sympathy to his family ( I too sympathise with his family) but when people try to rewrite history to portray Lenihan as a great statesman, patriot and beacon of integrity...on a politics forum...then disagreement is going to arise.

    Its not as if anyone is ringing up the deceased's family to tell them what they think, interrupting the funeral to launch a tirade, or dancing on the grave (literally given the Haughey affair): theyre posting on a political debate forum.
    its more of a common decency affair and would imho fall well within the domain of the "dont be a dick" rule

    On a politics forum, its essentially trolling. People could have the time of their lives trolling Provos by posting only really nice things about Maggie Thatcher when her RIP thread appears. Whod be to blame for the end result?

    Mind you, their day would come with the Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness thread...


  • #2


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

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


  • #2
    Sand > LoLth on these matters


  • #2


    1. why would a member of an organisation vehemently opposed to Mrs. Thatcher be reading a thread whose whole purpose is to offer condolences?

    2. what else, other than praise and condolences would they expect to find there? Should the thread title not give it away?

    3. In this hypothetical scenario, are you suggesting that any posts offering condolences would be trolling republicans and therefore shouldnt be allowed? what of the users who are genuinely sorry to see Mrs. Thatcher pass (hey! its hypothetical!) ? Are they not entitled to post their opinion? if thats the case, then any user posting on almost any topic in politics must be trolling someone unless we can find a topic that everyone agrees on.

    4. Users are free to disagree but they should do so in the proper place. Trolling is posting a message in an area to get a reaction. I would consider it reasonable to assume that a thread dedicated to offering condolences to X politician or wishing that X public figure rest in peace be populate by wellwishers and supporters of that public figure, and so any post that denounces politician X would be deliberately trying to get a reaction and therefore trolling in that thread

    I'll make this as clear as possible: A condolence/RIP thread is NOT the place for disagreements or debate. It is a thread for offering condolences on a person's passing or to extoll the virtues of the deceased. If you dont want to read nice things about a person because you feel they are untrue, then dont read the thread. If you want to post your negative opinion of the person, then you are free to do so in the proper place


  • #2


    1. why would a member of an organisation vehemently opposed to Mrs. Thatcher be reading a thread whose whole purpose is to offer condolences?

    Because its posted on a politics forum where they frequently discuss political issues - including Mrs. Thatchers policies?

    The real question would be why is someone posting a RIP thread for Mrs. Thatcher in a place where its going to be like feeding time at the zoo?

    2. what else, other than praise and condolences would they expect to find there? Should the thread title not give it away?

    Is it a condolences thread? Or a praise thread?

    Thats the main problem - people want to cloak praise in the guise of a condolences thread, in a political forum where its exactly the wrong place to attempt to do so.
    3. In this hypothetical scenario, are you suggesting that any posts offering condolences would be trolling republicans and therefore shouldnt be allowed?

    No, condolences would be fine in my view. Saying something along the lines of "My sympathies to the family" is totally unobjectionable.

    On the other hand, "My sympathies to the family - Ireland has lost a true friend today. She was a steadfast ally in the war against terrorists. I greatly admired her for her strength and courage in the Falklands and dealing with those miners. We could do with some of her courage today." on the otherhand would lead to a complete disaster of a thread. For the exact same reasons posting a polite, reasonable, and well written argument disproving God is not allowed in the Christianity forum.

    I know it, and you know it.
    what of the users who are genuinely sorry to see Mrs. Thatcher pass (hey! its hypothetical!) ? Are they not entitled to post their opinion? if thats the case, then any user posting on almost any topic in politics must be trolling someone unless we can find a topic that everyone agrees on

    Sure. If theyre willing to defend and discuss it.

    The problem is people want to be able to post their political views, and then not have to defend or discuss them. Using a grieving family as a human shield and tut-tutting: how dare that uncouth so and so disagree with their political opinion...on a thread about a political figure...on a politics forum.

    4. Users are free to disagree but they should do so in the proper place. Trolling is posting a message in an area to get a reaction. I would consider it reasonable to assume that a thread dedicated to offering condolences to X politician or wishing that X public figure rest in peace be populate by wellwishers and supporters of that public figure, and so any post that denounces politician X would be deliberately trying to get a reaction and therefore trolling in that thread

    The Politics forum is the proper place to disagree - strongly at times - over political issues and political figures.

    Its yet to be shown its the proper place to post RIP threads where some posters cant resist posting their political views whilst claiming immunity from disagreement.

    From the Politics Charter:
    Please remember that we are not a blog, a news feed nor an announcement forum - if you are not willing to discuss what you post, then please don't post it.

    This forum is for discussion and debate, so again, we will not tolerate soapboxing

    it should be accompanied by a detailed summary of its contents and arguments, and you must be prepared to discuss it.

    Also, this forum is not a soap-box or an advertising medium.

    This includes refraining from abuse or conduct that will deliberately upset or provoke others

    I think you can see a general theme emerging...

    Theres no exemption granted for RIP threads, so its all grey. I think people are clever enough to leave well enough alone if a condolence thread is *just* a condolence thread. But you dont want a condolence thread - you want to be able to post political opinions whilst ignoring the basic rule of the forum: only post what youre willing to discuss and defend.

    Condolences are fine - I remember the Haughey thread, and I have no problem with anyone expressing sympathies to his family.

    However, when they were attempting to paint Haughey as a great statesman, wonderful patriot and shining light thats basically just trolling. The guy was a coniving crook, and degraded Irish politics and public service throughout his career.
    I'll make this as clear as possible: A condolence/RIP thread is NOT the place for disagreements or debate. It is a thread for offering condolences on a person's passing or to extoll the virtues of the deceased. If you dont want to read nice things about a person because you feel they are untrue, then dont read the thread. If you want to post your negative opinion of the person, then you are free to do so in the proper place

    Then the Politics forum cannot be the proper place for a RIP thread - as the Politics forum is the proper place for political debate. Create an RIP Forum, move all RIP threads into it and run them by whatever rules apply to that forum.

    Or, as someone noted earlier, have a single RIP/Condolence thread opened, post sympathies to the family and then have it locked. People can Thank the post or not as their hearts desire without any potential for offending anyone or provoking muppetry.


  • #2


    Sand the only reason why it would turn into feeding time at the zoo is if people don't respect that it is in actual fact an RIP thread - it's unique and is posted because of exceptional circumstances when a 'Politician' dies on the 'Politics' forum. The moderators can moderate the content surely? ..and snip out irrelevant content or off topic content that crosses the line.

    If a politician dies, I would imagine that many people may log onto boards and navigate to the relevant forum, and expect to see recognition - it would be an odd discussion forum if 'Politics' didn't allow recognition when a politician dies?

    It's not like they are going to be making any future contributions that will ever be debated there again, it's recognition that they played a role, have been debated in the past and will be debated into the future, love em or hate em. It's an RIP thread, a full stop to their political career and contributions.

    If people 'praise' a little, why get so hot under the collar? -just temper your own post on the thread in question..and it's countered in a respectful manner. Lots of posters did this on AH and managed to temper their post without ridiculing posters or ruining the dynamic of the threads purpose.

    It would seem odd to feel so strongly under those exceptional circumstances that some would want to literally 'gag' posters on it down to a 'thanks' button. I'd be sad if that were necessary to be honest.


Sign In or Register to comment.