Ban RIP threads in Politics

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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

lmaopml

Double post.

lmaopml

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...

LoLth

@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).

Sand

@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...

P. Breathnach

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.

The Left Hand Of God

Sand > LoLth on these matters

LoLth

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

Sand

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.

lmaopml

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.

LoLth

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

you are putting forward points in relation to RIP thread in the politics forum.

My points are geared toward RIP threads in general.

how the RIP threads are handled in the politics forum is something for the politics mods to decide but how RIP threads are treated in general on boards.ie is for the admins to determine.

I can see how the confusion started, I should have posted "in general and not just on the politics fourm" in my original post above to make the difference more transparent.

so: in general on boards.ie

RIP threads are places for offering condolences and nice/neutral thoughts on the deceased (yes, this means praise). its the whole purpose of these threads.

Posting arguments or disparaging remarks abotu the deceased is not an acceptable form of behaviour. The forum may be the place for it but the thread most certainly is not.

Posting "the truth" also has a time and place and the sensitivities of the situation should be taken into account before posting.

Can we agree on these statements?

politics forum in particular:

I think RIP threads should be allowed (but its up to the mods) but I do see your point that by their nature they go contrary to the charter and so, if they are to be acceptable they should have an exception in the charter that makes a specific allowance. Although it could be argued that all fora have "this is a place for discussion..." and have an implied "you must be willing to discuss" "no soapboxing" understanding and that in general a condolences thread should be given some special consideration.

perhaps a boards.ie wide rule should be implemented that, unless a charter specifically changes it, takes effect. I dont think we have a hard and fast rule concerning RIP threads, hence my mention of the "dont be a dick" rule which should cover it really but, for those that want to see it written in black and white (or grey and grey, or blue and white depending on the theme you use) a rule should be set in place.

to respond to your post though:

Just because a thread is posted in a forum it doesnt force a user to read it. If a thread says "this thread is about spiders" and you have a phobia of spiders and all things related, who's to blame if you open the thread and get freaked out?

Some posters need to start taking responsibility for their own decisions and actions. reading a thread is a deliberate action. I might not like X or Y political group but that doesnt give me the right to complain if they post in the correct forum.

---

People always post praise in a condolences thread. they say nice things that they believe about the deceased. I can see where some may go overboard in the politics sense and use the condolence thread as a means to get a dig at another but if its anything too obvious, I would be tempted to call on the "dont be a dick" rule and give them a warning or worse for dick-like behaviour. However, those that take offense have to have a bit of common sense as well and not just cry outrage at even the slightest view that differs from their own and to register their offense in the proper manner (report the post and let a mod deal with it).

---

The politics forum may be the place to disagree strongly but is a RIP thread in the forum or indeed anywhere the place? I dont think so. I think its disrespectful and utterly dick-like no matter what forum its in and regardless of whether the rules specifically say you can or cant. Not everything should need to be set out in a rule. Some form of respect and decency needs to be shown as well. We have banned users in the past for being gits or for abuse or trolling even in a forum where the charter does not explicitly state "do not be a git or abuse anyone or troll". Again, I think users have to take some form of responsibility for their actions and posts and saying "but its not against the charter to abuse the subject of a condolences thread" is not, to me, a user taking responsibility, its passing the buck to the mods for not foreseeing that someone would behave in this manner.

---

RIP / Book of condolences forum was opened a good while ago. its not actually being used (I dont know why exactly) and there is currently a discussion going on in feedback about moving all RIP threads there - with the exception it seems of RIP threads for boardsies in the forums they frequented. Would these RIP threads be open to disagreement or posting the truth about what a user felt toward another user?

nesf

RIP threads are important because they remind us that there was a regular person behind the politics and their passing should be treated with some degree of respect and restraint. Then that assumes a degree of maturity that is beyond half the forum from the looks of things.

e.g. I think Lenihan ****ed up royally with the bank guarantee, I can still offer my sympathies to his family though and can consider him a loss to the political world because while he ****ed up he wasn't a corrupt bastard and at least seemed to be an honest enough man if woefully out of his depth when crunch time came.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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.

Politics is nasty though. Human nature is just that way. People lash out at easy to blame targets quite mindlessly and the mob latches onto boogymen to blame for the mess.

For the past 2 years (and longer for some people) it's been FF and some of these people couldn't even leave a RIP thread be without going onto it all guns blazing.


What are the mods supposed to do though? This is the zeitgeist we have to deal with right now and don't have much choice in the matter. Banning people for following it would both be futile and a tad unfair to the people involved.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

...
What are the mods supposed to do though? This is the zeitgeist we have to deal with right now and don't have much choice in the matter. Banning people for following it would both be futile and a tad unfair to the people involved.

Following that line of reasoning, it might be as well to leave the forum unmoderated.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Following that line of reasoning, it might be as well to leave the forum unmoderated.

Not really. The question comes down to where do you draw the line between things you can change through rules and bans and things you just have to accept as part of the culture of today. I honestly do not believe we could change people's views on this issue without banning over half the forum permanently. Thus making it something we have to accept as part of the current zeitgeist.

Believe me, I don't like it. I hate the mindless mob mentality that uncritically blames FF for all ills as if there's something special about FF and that they weren't just along for the ride and had little control or influence over what was happening really (i.e. could have easily been FG/Lab in power and little would have changed about the outcome). I can't change their views en masse though so I don't think there's much point in me sanctioning them over it.

P. Breathnach

As a mod, you can see from my post reporting pattern what I consider unacceptable, and you can also infer that where the mods have not agreed with me (by taking action on posts that I have reported) I have let most things go by without making a song and dance about it.

I dislike it when abuse of politicians is considered to be political discussion, but I am somewhat resigned to that. But I draw a line for myself at posts that celebrate a person's death. It seems to me that the mods do not. That's why I no longer participate in the Politics forums.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

As a mod, you can see from my post reporting pattern what I consider unacceptable, and you can also infer that where the mods have not agreed with me (by taking action on posts that I have reported) I have let most things go by without making a song and dance about it.

I dislike it when abuse of politicians is considered to be political discussion, but I am somewhat resigned to that. But I draw a line for myself at posts that celebrate a person's death. It seems to me that the mods do not. That's why I no longer participate in the Politics forums.

It would be fairer to say that your views on what constitutes a post that "celebrate(s) a person's death" is different from that of the mods.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

It would be fairer to say that your views on what constitutes a post that "celebrate(s) a person's death" is different from that of the mods.

It doesn't matter to me any more what the mods think, for I have lost confidence in them. I doubt that they are unaware of this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72715870&postcount=242, which contains the following passage: "I only wish he didn't die and he continued on and suffer and suffer badly" (drbollocko quoted it in this thread). Yet there is no sign of any mod response.

So I don't buy into the mods' view of how things should be, nor feel obliged to accept their idea of what constitutes a post that celebrates a person's death. I'll put my own views forward here, as this is a feedback forum.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It doesn't matter to me any more what the mods think, for I have lost confidence in them. I doubt that they are unaware of this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72715870&postcount=242, which contains the following passage: "I only wish he didn't die and he continued on and suffer and suffer badly" (drbollocko quoted it in this thread). Yet there is no sign of any mod response.

So I don't buy into the mods' view of how things should be, nor feel obliged to accept their idea of what constitutes a post that celebrates a person's death. I'll put my own views forward here, as this is a feedback forum.

I'm sorry to say that I was, in fact, unaware of that post. I've not been moderating those threads since it was borne in on me that my reflexes are inappropriate in this particular context.

apologies,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are very few coherent site-wide policies on anything, in fact - and quoting an AH thread in a discussion about the moderation of such threads in Politics serves to demonstrate that. None of those posts would have been - or will be - acceptable in Politics, whatever the mods may think of the person concerned.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

later12

When Brian Lenihan died, books of condolences were open in Government buildings in Dublin and at civic offices outside of Dublin.
When Garret FitzGerald died, there was a similar facility in public buildings, FitzGerald lay in state in the Mansion House where thousands filed past to pay their respects; and when Haughey died there was a similar public facility in state buildings all around the country, and indeed in embassies abroad.

Does anybody here who objects to RIP threads feel they had a duty or a reasonable cause to go and protest at these public events in which, undoubtedly, accomplishments were embellished, contentious remarks written and downright revisionist lies were uttered?

Personally I found the revisionism surrounding Garret GitzGerald to be a little off the wall. At times the embellishments were almost comedic, I was awaiting announcement in Rome of an emergency beatification. But I don't see that I had a place deliberately looking for trouble at designated RIP events - be they online or in state buildings.

Imagine if, at one of these events during the mourning of Garret FitzGerald, I had stood by the condolences books and watched the comments as they were written, making sure to correct anyone who offended my own personal sense of FitzGerald's political and economic past. That, to my mind, would be little different to lurking around an RIP thread waiting for political niceties to be uttered before starting a commotion. Unnecessary and inflammatory are the two words I would use to describe that.

The difference is that this is the internet, and people sometimes behave a lot differently online to how they might behave in the real world. It's a lot easier to object to a Brian Lenihan condolences thread containing political compliments than it is to object to a book of condolences and political compliments at Athlone Civic Offices.

The thing about the politics forum's RIP threads is that they give people the opportunity to express their regret at someone's passing even if the poster might not be able to get to a book of condolences in real life. That's a nice facility, I think. I'm sure that families of the deceased do come across them, as well - maybe months or even years later. I think it would be a real shame if those who object to these RIP threads on political forums got their way on this. I find it unnecessary and hypocritical.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Dear me - did I say something objectionable about libertarianism recently? I suspect I may have done...

/snide

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And it should be equally obvious my points are in response to your contention that:

Simply, if the figure concerned is someone to whom posters and mods are politically sympathetic, the thread will be handled with consideration for the person and his or her family. If not, a blind eye is turned and people can do/say whatever they want.

I'm sure people will be less respectful of Mrs Thatcher than you would like them to be, and I'm sure the mods will not enforce the standard of adulatory misery about her death that you would consider acceptable - something that will reflect the fact that she was widely hated by people whose opinions are as valid as yours.

Does that imply mod prejudice? No. It will reflect the fact that she was widely hated.

Since LoLth has opened the discussion beyond the specifics of the Politics forum, and onto the terrain of site-wide policy, it seems relevant to discuss how RIP threads (or even "on his/her deathbed" threads) are handled in general on the site.

I would assume that the Admins do indeed have an interest in formulating a coherent site-wide policy on this — and rightly so, because any high-profile death, whether it be Michael Jackson, Gerry Ryan, or Brian Lenihan, gives rise to much the same set of issues and concerns.

True enough, and something that would have been of value here. We seem, however, to lack any sort of adequate "formal" mechanism for deciding these things.

As I said earlier, I don't appear to have some necessary set of social reflexes here. When widely hated or highly contentious public figures die, I don't see any real need to act, even temporarily, as if they had never done anything wrong in their lives. That is a degree of respect I have no problem extending to private persons, or to the public person as a private individual, but to someone who is accorded obsequies by the State on their death it seems more than a little ridiculous to act as if they were a little old lady from down the road. Death will not make Michael Lowry anything other than he was - nor did it make Lenihan, nor will it make Thatcher.

More generally, I'd say that the immediate revisionism that accompanies the actual period of mourning sets the tone for a longer, more subtle, but more damaging revisionism that appears to apply to all Irish public figures once they're safely dead. I presume it's part of the same culture that gives us some of the world's most chilling libel laws - and to my mind it has similar value, but I appreciate I'm in a minority.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

As long as people don't say something like "I'm glad he is dead, shame it didnt happen sooner" I think its OK.

Its stupid to suggest that when someone dies only nice things can be said about them. Lenihan totally messed up and the Irish people are suffering because of it. To read revisionist crap about him being some sort of superhero politician is galling. This is about the politics forum, as many have pointed out its unfair to forbid any negative comments about Lenihan and only allow ones which sing his virtues.

As for RIP/condolence threads, politics is not the place for it, nor is AH. Maybe the regional subforum where the person was from, or better yet a condolences forum (I think there is a thread around somewhere on that) where people can be revisionists to their hearts content. Darragh or someone could give a site wide announcement or something when someone famous dies directing people there. Politics is for political debate, hence I feel that the legacy thread is fine, the RIP one not. Having both, or multiple condolences threads all over the site is unnecessary imo.

The Thatcher thread will indeed be fun, I struggle to think of a more loathed woman.

FlutterinBantam

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well said, as I have stated many times before the facilitiy of Boards.ie has been used with impunity to promulgate a certain point of view and in my opinion is an orchestrated movement.

Depending on the dominant point of view, dissenters and serious contributors, are accused of trolling and end up with permabans from the more contentious Fora.

Not complaining, or pointing any fingers personally, but a coterie with a certain point of view undoubtedly hold influence.


Tell me about it.:mad:

Wolfe Tone

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Well said, as I have stated many times before the facilitiy of Boards.ie has been used with impunity to promulgate a certain point of view and in my opinion is an orchestrated movement.

Depending on the dominant point of view, dissenters and serious contributors, are accused of trolling and end up with permabans from the more contentious Fora.

Not complaining, or pointing any fingers personally, but a coterie with a certain point of view undoubtedly hold influence.


Tell me about it.:mad:

lol, Don't be so paranoid flutt.

Scofflaw

I think my point of view here can be summarised as thinking that, barring the usual rules on language/civility, people should be free to say what they want to when a public figure dies. I don't respect people who say "I'm glad they're dead", but if that's what they feel when the person dies, I don't see why I should be called on to prevent them saying it in the first place, or to penalise them for doing so. If their feelings in the matter are so strong that they're willing to break social convention to express them, why am I supposed to back up social convention?

I have no problem penalising those who appear simply to be unable to recognise that there's anything that might cause them to mitigate their opinions, and who simply bark like unruly dogs, but those who do recognise that their behaviour is in breach of the norms but still feel they need to say it...no, I don't see that they should be penalised, and I'm not seeing any arguments here that persuade me to that point of view.

At what other time are the Politics mods expected to implement suppression of particular points of view?

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think my point of view here can be summarised as thinking that, barring the usual rules on language/civility, people should be free to say what they want to when a public figure dies. I don't respect people who say "I'm glad they're dead", but if that's what they feel when the person dies, I don't see why I should be called on to prevent them saying it in the first place, or penalising them for doing so. If their feelings in the matter are so strong that they're willing to break social convention to express them, why am I supposed to back up social convention? ...

You're a mod. It goes with the territory. If you don't accept that, then you should not continue as a mod.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You're a mod. It goes with the territory. If you don't accept that, then you should not continue as a mod.

Implementing policy is something I have no issue with - and if a policy emerges from these discussions, I'll implement it, whatever my personal views are. At the moment, there is no policy, and your personal views are not a substitute for policy.

regards,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Implementing policy is something I have no issue with - and if a policy emerges from these discussions, I'll implement it, whatever my personal views are. At the moment, there is no policy, and your personal views are not a substitute for policy.

We do have sitewide guidelines, the first one that posters should be civil, usually and quasi-officially represented by the "don't be a dick" slogan. In effect, you are telling us that the meaning of that guideline needs to be spelled out in precise terms for every instance of behaviour that might be considered questionable.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

We do have sitewide guidelines, the first one that posters should be civil, usually and quasi-officially represented by the "don't be a dick" slogan. In effect, you are telling us that the meaning of that guideline needs to be spelled out in precise terms for every instance of behaviour that might be considered questionable.

Where it's open to debate, yes - why would that not be the case?

I appreciate that (as far as I can see) you don't feel there's anything to debate here, but I would say, judging from the debate, that that's not the case. There is a camp of opinion that says that in the case of a public figure, the mods should not enforce a 'positive/neutral comments only' rule. If that was taken as policy, then there's another debate in terms of what constitutes the acceptable limits of negative comment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Its not that hard to comprehend. Do you need to be spoon fed?

Fun, as in a nightmare for various mods like the Gerry Ryan ones. I'm sure scofflaw will have a great time in trying to stem the flow of hate aimed at that loathsome woman when she eventually dies if its decided thats what he should do.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd hope for a pretty watertight policy. The current situation suits nobody.

Permabear wrote:

This post has been deleted.

When exactly did I piss in your cornflakes?

regards,
Scofflaw

Nodin

I find myself somewhat mystified as to how this is turning into a 'Snipe At Scofflaw' festival.......

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The remark to which thats addressed.....

Scofflaw wrote:

There are very few coherent site-wide policies on anything, in fact - and quoting an AH thread in a discussion about the moderation of such threads in Politics serves to demonstrate that. None of those posts would have been - or will be - acceptable in Politics, whatever the mods may think of the person concerned.

The above is a statement of fact, delivered in a matter of fact manner. I would suggest you interpreted it through some malign filter that caused you to mistake its tone and content.

P. Breathnach

Nodin wrote: »

I find myself somewhat mystified as to how this is turning into a 'Snipe At Scofflaw' festival.......

It shouldn't be, and getting into that issue is side-tracking.

Let's get back to the facts:
1. At 10.35 on the day Lenihan died, T_Runner opened a thread entitled "Brian Lenihan RIP". I think people generally accept that this was opened as a condolence thread.
2. At 10.46 Paddysnapper posted

Very sad news....He will be a great loss to the nation. And his family.

3. At 10.51 Cookie_Monster responded to Paddysnapper's post with

oh, come on...
he (among others) presided over the biggest scandal in Irish history, handing billions of banking debt over to the public and lied constantly to the same public about what was going on.

I for one am not sorry to see the back of him.

Ye may feel that's harsh but he imposed hardship and suffering on tens of thousands of Irish people due to his financial decisions as minister and did it all without regret and with a smile on his face.

[I have bolded the passages that might be considered most contentious.]

It is my opinion that Paddysnapper said something ill-judged, but not outrageously so: we have a custom in Ireland of saying something nice about the recently-deceased, at least in the interval between death and burial. A mod edit might have been justifiable.

It is my view that Cookie_Monster's response was grossly disproportionate, and quite out of place in a condolences thread.

The moderators take a different view of Cookie_Monster's behaviour. It is the tolerance for such intentional nastiness that bothers me.

Nodin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It shouldn't be, and getting into that issue is side-tracking..

...something the perpetrators will hopefully note.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It is my view that Cookie_Monster's response was grossly disproportionate, and quite out of place in a condolences thread.

The moderators take a different view of Cookie_Monster's behaviour. It is the tolerance for such intentional nastiness that bothers me.

Some would take the view that the statement He will be a great loss to the nation. would be a provocation which inevitably invites a response such as CM's. Hence the call to either stop RIP threads, or greatly limit whats said in them. I'd take the latter view.

P. Breathnach

Nodin wrote: »

...
Some would take the view that the statement He will be a great loss to the nation. would be a provocation which inevitably invites a response such as CM's.

I recognise that, even though I would see it as according with the Irish custom of finding something nice to say about the recently-deceased. It's because I understand that people are easily provoked (and some people seem to seek to be provoked) that I suggested that a mod edit might have been appropriate.

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

So would I.

I'd also prefer it if people refrained from discussing a contentious political legacy for a short interval, the period between death and burial. It might be seen as combining some consideration for the feelings of the deceased's family with taking enough time to form a considered view.

Nodin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I recognise that, even though I would see it as according with the Irish custom of finding something nice to say about the recently-deceased. It's because I understand that people are easily provoked (and some people seem to seek to be provoked) that I suggested that a mod edit might have been appropriate..

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

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd also prefer it if people refrained from discussing a contentious political legacy for a short interval, the period between death and burial. It might be seen as combining some consideration for the feelings of the deceased's family with taking enough time to form a considered view.

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

P. Breathnach

Nodin wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Wolfe Tone

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

Sand

@Lloth

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

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

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

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

Posting arguments or disparaging remarks abotu the deceased is not an acceptable form of behaviour. The forum may be the place for it but the thread most certainly is not.

Posting "the truth" also has a time and place and the sensitivities of the situation should be taken into account before posting.

Can we agree on these statements?

Well, this is the thing:

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

@P.Breathnach

I dislike it when abuse of politicians is considered to be political discussion, but I am somewhat resigned to that. But I draw a line for myself at posts that celebrate a person's death. It seems to me that the mods do not.

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

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

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

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

@Later10

The difference is that this is the internet, and people sometimes behave a lot differently online to how they might behave in the real world. It's a lot easier to object to a Brian Lenihan condolences thread containing political compliments than it is to object to a book of condolences and political compliments at Athlone Civic Offices.

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

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

Scofflaw

Nodin wrote: »

Some would take the view that the statement He will be a great loss to the nation. would be a provocation which inevitably invites a response such as CM's. Hence the call to either stop RIP threads, or greatly limit whats said in them. I'd take the latter view.

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

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

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd also prefer it if people refrained from discussing a contentious political legacy for a short interval, the period between death and burial. It might be seen as combining some consideration for the feelings of the deceased's family with taking enough time to form a considered view.

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

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

nesf

Nodin wrote: »

Some would take the view that the statement He will be a great loss to the nation. would be a provocation which inevitably invites a response such as CM's. Hence the call to either stop RIP threads, or greatly limit whats said in them. I'd take the latter view.

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

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

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

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

Nodin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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

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

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

nesf

Nodin wrote: »

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

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