Condolence threads in AH

cyrusdvirus

Why is it that when there is a condolence thread in AH (such as the Neil Armstrong one) there are always idiots who make jokes and/or troll the thread and never get into hassle yet another user who tells them to F-off gets banned??

Can we not make it as part of the charter of AH that if there is a condolence thread you don't bloody troll it?

I know AH is a lighter side of boards, but some of the wilful ignorance displayed in there is staggering.

And i'm not having a pop at any mod in particular, but i do think that that particular banning is a bit heavy handed

LoLth

There was a large discussion about condolence threads in the past, I cant remember offhand what the result for AH was but we do have a Book of Condolences forum set up in the Sys category specifically for this reason - *some* users taking cheap shots in condolence threads - that has a strict charter.

If you have an issue with a ban then please follow the Dispute Resolution process which you can find HERE

cyrusdvirus

LoLth wrote: »

There was a large discussion about condolence threads in the past, I cant remember offhand what the result for AH was but we do have a Book of Condolences forum set up in the Sys category specifically for this reason - *some* users taking cheap shots in condolence threads - that has a strict charter.

If you have an issue with a ban then please follow the Dispute Resolution process which you can find HERE

oh i wasn't the one that was banned!

it's just something i noticed

anncoates

People don't want to use the proper forum for condolence threads.

Half the point of Internet mourning is not the solemn utterance x 1029 but rather being seen to do so by as many people as possible so obviously people descend on forums with the most footfall to do so.

I think there are some people in those threads that see monitoring the threads for micro-instances of disrespect as the ultimate piety: my rebuke get more thanks than your RIP, etc.

I do assume when an (rightly to me) unpopular figure like Margaret Thatcher dies, any thread about her death will be as rigorously (self) policed as the usual platitudes (think of the family; dislike of her is still subjective and dependent on political views and whatnot) still apply.

Orim

If you want a thread with no jokes then don't post in a thread in AH.

Go to the forum for condolences : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1360

No discussion allowed in there so no jokes, no questioning if a person was really all that, etc.

I agree with anncoates that most people are posting to be seen. That's why people don't go to the above forum or even the very appropriate astronomy and space forum because there is a lack of traffic and less of chance to be outraged.

humanji

If you break the charter, no matter what the reason, you should expect some sort of sanction. So if someone is just being rude and you tell them to f*ck off, you're breaking the charter, and they're not. So you'd get the warning or infraction.

In the case of a condolence thread, someone not liking the person isn't a reason to infract them. They're often just told to keep out of the thread, mostly because they then get on their high horse and claim a right to their opinion of the person and the thread goes way off topic with lots of bickering, warnings, infractions and bans. A condolence thread really isn't the place for that. You don't go to someone's funeral and shout out that they were a c*nt.

With the above example of Margaret Thatcher, I doubt she'll get a condolence thread, but a thread noting that she had died. There's a difference that can only really be seen on a case by case basis and it is one of the reasons we have a condolences forum, so we don't have to have fights breaking out on whether or not people should be respectful.

cyrusdvirus

Orim wrote: »

If you want a thread with no jokes then don't post in a thread in AH.

Go to the forum for condolences : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1360

No discussion allowed in there so no jokes, no questioning if a person was really all that, etc.

I agree with anncoates that most people are posting to be seen. That's why people don't go to the above forum or even the very appropriate astronomy and space forum because there is a lack of traffic and less of chance to be outraged.

I was using the Armstrong thread as an example, and am fully aware of the very nature of the beast that is AH. And i enjoy loitering in there from time to time myself.

I just feel that if someone has opened up a thread saying Gatecrash RIP then it'd be poor form to start trolling that thread.

open up a new thread entitled "Gatecrash is dead, who bloomin' cares? What did he ever do for us?" all you want.

anncoates

Maybe at the very least just punish the more egregious cases of back-seat nodding being committed under cover of moral outrage.

cyrusdvirus

anncoates wrote: »

Maybe at the very least just punish the more egregious cases of back-seat nodding being committed under cover of moral outrage.

I'd prefer to punish the more egregious cases of trolling, myself.

anncoates

gatecrash wrote: »

I'd prefer to punish the more egregious cases of trolling, myself.

You mean prioritize one instance of a charter breach over another based on your own feelings and that of mob sanctimony?

cyrusdvirus

anncoates wrote: »

You mean prioritize one instance of a charter breach over another based on your own feelings and that of mob sanctimony?

well while you are busy punishing people who tell others to feck off..... between the two of us there should be a fair balance of posters left.

anncoates

gatecrash wrote: »

there should be a fair balance of posters left.

Aye, here's a representative sample.

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

humanji

anncoates wrote: »

Maybe at the very least just punish the more egregious cases of back-seat nodding being committed under cover of moral outrage.

They usually are, in the form of a warning on thread.

cyrusdvirus

anncoates wrote: »

Aye, here's a representative sample.

Don't forget the little stories that people tell, like the first time i read his book/listened to this song/saw that guy in a movie/was hiding behind the couch when he scored that goal... those little anecdotes that people sometimes tell.

So what if they never met the person in question.

I'm not one for grieving over someone i never met, but surely if others are, then as a little bit of basic decency it is incumbent on the rest of us not to be assholes and try making a pathetically unfunny joke.

anncoates

gatecrash wrote: »

Don't forget the little stories that people tell, like the first time i read his book/listened to this song/saw that guy in a movie/was hiding behind the couch when he scored that goal... those little anecdotes that people sometimes tell.

So what if they never met the person in question.

I'm not one for grieving over someone i never met, but surely if others are, then as a little bit of basic decency it is incumbent on the rest of us not to be assholes and try making a pathetically unfunny joke.

That's why there's a forum for showing this kind of basic decency.

But everyone ignores that because it's more fun to shoehorn the public demonstration of grief into a forum in which more people see it.

P. Breathnach

anncoates wrote: »

That's why there's a forum for showing this kind of basic decency...

I thought basic decency was a requirement in all forums: isn't that what DBAD is about?

anncoates

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I thought basic decency was a requirement in all forums: isn't that what DBAD is about?

I was thinking of the kind of specialized basic decency that just involves about 150m posts all saying RIP.

My name is URL

humanji wrote: »

There's a difference that can only really be seen on a case by case basis and it is one of the reasons we have a condolences forum, so we don't have to have fights breaking out on whether or not people should be respectful.

I'm surprised by how little traffic there is on the Condolences forum. Maybe people just aren't aware of its existence. Could a note be posted in RIP threads by mods in AH reminding people that there is a forum they can post in if they only want to share condolences rather than partake in a discussion about the person that has died?

mackg

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm surprised by how little traffic there is on the Condolences forum. Maybe people just aren't aware of its existence. Could a note be posted in RIP threads by mods in AH reminding people that there is a forum they can post in if they only want to share condolences rather than partake in a discussion about the person that has died?

Every condolence thread that has been locked recently has had a link to the forum.

humanji

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm surprised by how little traffic there is on the Condolences forum. Maybe people just aren't aware of its existence. Could a note be posted in RIP threads by mods in AH reminding people that there is a forum they can post in if they only want to share condolences rather than partake in a discussion about the person that has died?

It's hardly surprising that not many people know that the forum exists, as it's not something you'd expect. As Mackg says, most threads have links to the Book of Condolence forum, or a link to a more appropriate forum for discussion of the person.

P. Breathnach

anncoates wrote: »

I was thinking of the kind of specialized basic decency that just involves about 150m posts all saying RIP.

No. You're creating an unreal image of basic decency.

anncoates

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No. You're creating an unreal image of basic decency.

What am I supposed to say to this? I'm not, so there?

The tenet of basic decency (as in no 'disrespectful' discussion except RIPs when a dedicated forum expressly exist for same) is an abstraction in a forum like AH so if we want to ensure that it prevails when some minor celebrity passes away, then limit condolence threads to a forum where the expected degree of respect is expressly defined in the charter.

All that happens in AH is a situation where the degrees of permissible respect is decided in an ad hoc fashion by how sanctimonious the mob are feeling about a particular hero or celebrity.

cyrusdvirus

anncoates wrote: »

The tenet of basic decency (as in no 'disrespectful' discussion except RIPs when a dedicated forum expressly exist for same) is an abstraction in a forum like AH so if we want to ensure that it prevails when some minor celebrity passes away, then limit condolence threads to a forum where the expected degree of respect is expressly defined in the charter.

All that happens in AH is a situation where the degrees of permissible respect is decided in an ad hoc fashion by how sanctimonious the mob are feeling about a particular hero or celebrity.

Where are you getting that from?? In the example of the Armstrong thread people were sharing anecdotes about where they were during the very first moonwalk, others were talking about how much they admired him, others were talking about how it was a pity that of the 12 men to do it only 8 are left and how sad it was that we (mankind) won't be back to the lunar surface in their lifetimes.... And others were falling over themselves to be the first to make idiotic jokes about how it was a bad week for him, losing his Tour De France titles, then dying... And others were falling over themselves to be the first to make a joke about, oh wait, that joke has already been made..... Oh I'll just be an idiot and make it again.... And others were adopting a too cool for school blasé hipster shrug the shoulders "so what, some old guy is dead"

Nowhere there was there someone saying you must only post RIP. and that's all you are allowed post.

anncoates

gatecrash wrote: »

Where are you getting that from?? In the example of the Armstrong thread people were sharing anecdotes about where they were during the very first moonwalk, others were talking about how much they admired him, others were talking about how it was a pity that of the 12 men to do it only 8 are left and how sad it was that we (mankind) won't be back to the lunar surface in their lifetimes.... And others were falling over themselves to be the first to make idiotic jokes about how it was a bad week for him, losing his Tour De France titles, then dying... And others were falling over themselves to be the first to make a joke about, oh wait, that joke has already been made..... Oh I'll just be an idiot and make it again.... And others were adopting a too cool for school blasé hipster shrug the shoulders "so what, some old guy is dead"

Nowhere there was there someone saying you must only post RIP. and that's all you are allowed post.

I enjoy the serious anecdotes and the lame jokes. Why insist on one or the other in a light hearted forum? And more to the point why disrupt the thread starting fights about what other people post?

cyrusdvirus

anncoates wrote: »

gatecrash wrote: »

Where are you getting that from?? In the example of the Armstrong thread people were sharing anecdotes about where they were during the very first moonwalk, others were talking about how much they admired him, others were talking about how it was a pity that of the 12 men to do it only 8 are left and how sad it was that we (mankind) won't be back to the lunar surface in their lifetimes.... And others were falling over themselves to be the first to make idiotic jokes about how it was a bad week for him, losing his Tour De France titles, then dying... And others were falling over themselves to be the first to make a joke about, oh wait, that joke has already been made..... Oh I'll just be an idiot and make it again.... And others were adopting a too cool for school blasé hipster shrug the shoulders "so what, some old guy is dead"

Nowhere there was there someone saying you must only post RIP. and that's all you are allowed post.

I enjoy the serious anecdotes and the lame jokes. Why insist on one or the other in a light hearted forum? And more to the point why disrupt the thread starting fights about what other people post?

I'm not starting any fights. I've maintained my point of view throughout this thread, if a user here opens a thread regarding the death of someone, it SHOULDN'T become a target for the first lame ass reply and sad little joke.

You feel differently, that's fair enough, we disagree.

anncoates

gatecrash wrote: »

I'm not starting any fights.

gatecrash wrote: »

if a user here opens a thread regarding the death of someone, it SHOULDN'T become a target for the first lame ass reply and sad little joke.

.

cyrusdvirus

anncoates wrote: »

.

How is that starting a fight? That is stating personal opinion.

anncoates

gatecrash wrote: »

How is that starting a fight? That is stating personal opinion.

That's the thing though: I don't mind seeing a mix of jokes and serious reminisce in condolence threads for famous people (it's what makes the forum interesting and popular) and I don't object to it on-thread and crusade against it.

I get the feeling - maybe I'm wrong - that a lot of things in AH that end up being deemed unacceptable (sexist jokes, lame jokes in celebrity condolence threads etc) are not so much about the inherent offensiveness of the actions at hand or even the fact that that the anti lobby is bigger than the pro lobby, but rather that the latter just kick up the most stink and cause so much furore that action is warranted just to maintain peace.

dr.bollocko

My preference has always been for a death discussion thread over a condolence thread....
Offensive jokes should not really have a part of it.

cyrusdvirus

dr.bollocko wrote: »

My preference has always been for a death discussion thread over a condolence thread....
Offensive jokes should not really have a part of it.

To be honest, i would have regarded the 2 as the same, especially in an area like AH.

Otherwise all you'd have is the list of RIP posts that anncoates alluded to earlier on.

El Guapo!

I agree they should be discussion threads. No point in having a thread with just a list of "RIP" for hundreds of posts. It should be a place where people can talk about the death of the person and recall their experiences of knowing the person or seeing them on tv etc. And it should be respectful at all times.
There should be zero tolerance for taking the píss out of the person on that thread.
There's plenty of places you can go (including our own Nein 11 forum) if that's the type of thread you want.

padd b1975

Can there not be a way for posters to disable their signature when posting their condolences?

RIP with a link to a toaster for sale or some "hilarious" one liner underneath is really very tacky and insensitive.

dr.bollocko

There's a little tickbox next to the quick reply that says "show your signature"

You untick that it doesn't show it.

Mods can edit this out too I think.

Dravokivich

padd b1975 wrote: »

Can there not be a way for posters to disable their signature when posting their condolences?

RIP with a link to a toaster for sale or some "hilarious" one liner underneath is really very tacky and insensitive.

If you don't want to see signatures, you can disable them in your control panel: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/profile.php?do=editoptions

In the "Thread Display Options" section.

LoLth

There are two very distinct forms of threads:

The Condolence thread where posters show their appreciation of the deceased and offer condolences to the relatives/family/friends.

Discussion thread where users discuss the life and work or the circumstances of death of the deceased.

Two completely different animals imho. The problem was, some posters were havign trouble telling the difference between the two and were posting negative comments among the "RIP" posts which only served to antagonise the posters (understandably) and kicked off flame wars IN the condolence thread.

Admin reaction was, lets not be dicks and troll condolence threads. Mod reaction was, thats a bit unfair to users who have to read praise for people they probably had serious issue with.

compromise was:
Condolence threads either get moved to the condolences forum or the mods police it to avoid trolls/muppetry.

Death discussion threads are the remit of the mods.

The result: AH now has death discussion threads and condolences should be made elsewhere. So, to answer the example above,

Maggie Thatcher pops her clogs and a condolence thread is started in AH with teh title Condolence thread: Margaret Thatcher RIP > then the users have enough cop and enough common courtesy to know NOT to troll it and vent their ire but isntead bring it to the mod's attention and it gets moved to the book of condolences forum.

Someone else posts a thread with the title "Margaret Thatcher died this morning" and links to a newspaper article on her life and works then the rest of the users can offer their OPINIONS. They cannot hurl abuse or be dicks but they can express their opinion that maybe the death was not a bad thing or disagree with some aspect of the story or something that another user posted. Similarly, they cannot pull quotes from the Condolence thread and use them to start a debate or as a platform for a rant.

and thats about it really. simples!

as for offensive jokes: thats a very very grey area. exactly what is offensive, whats going too far? Who decides? What do we do if a user thinks its perfectly fine but the mods dont? or another user feels its too far and the mods think its within the bounds of decency? Its hugely tricky. I'll admit, I know that the house party joke in the thread about the taliban beheadings was wrong...but I still smiled and I dont think it was offensive to the public in general (as in being indecent) to to any religion (being blasphemous), it was insensitive and I feel bad for laughing. So, the best thing to do is to keep teh tw oseperate. Sensitive well wishing --> condolence threads , banter and discussion --> discussion threads and never the twain shall meet.