A discussion on the rules.

Eliot Rosewater

Nodin wrote: »

Why have you pm'ed him about the post?

Because posters are expected not to make a post when it is blatantly obvious it is going to get a rise out of people and result in the kind of mess that occurred today.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Can I ask why there are even condolences threads in politics?

Because there is demand for them, as evidenced by the fact that the condolences thread has now 8 pages of posts.

southsiderosie wrote: »

It might be useful for the forum to have a clear policy on this, especially given the current state of Margaret Thatcher's health...

I must arrange to be out of the country when that happens.

Scofflaw

southsiderosie wrote: »

Can I ask why there are even condolences threads in politics? It seems that in the forum it makes more sense to discuss someone's political legacy than to just have page after page of RIP with no further allowable comment.

It might be useful for the forum to have a clear policy on this, especially given the current state of Margaret Thatcher's health...

Because - and this is somewhere where my partly English upbringing lets me down - publicly paying your respects to the dead is an integral part of Irish culture. And woe betide the person who does other than say something nice, as you've seen - although, to be fair, if one has nothing good to say, one can always say nothing, a rule far too rarely observed.

As for Thatcher...that'll be interesting, but the same policy will apply - a mod who is not frantically hunting for database backups and raw data files will ensure there is a condolences thread and a 'legacy' thread. The former will contain the RIP posts, the latter the furious diatribes against the Iron Lady and her works.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Apparently the BBC keep black ties, mourning paraphenalia and broadcasting protocols in a cupboard somewhere in the event of having to announce the death of Margaret Thatcher (and other category 1 individuals) live on air.

Perhaps boards.ie might consider some fire extinguishers and a water cannon.

beeftotheheels

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because - and this is somewhere where my partly English upbringing lets me down - publicly paying your respects to the dead is an integral part of Irish culture. And woe betide the person who does other than say something nice, as you've seen - although, to be fair, if one has nothing good to say, one can always say nothing, a rule far too rarely observed.

I think that it is partly to do with being a small country and with everyone knowing everyone. We've already had one poster identify themselves on the "legacy" thread as being a relative of Brian's.

It just strikes me that there is no immediate need to discuss the legacy as it will not change (Later10 I won't be giving out if you resurrect your Garret's legacy thread now), but there is the ability to cause additional pain to family and friends if any of them check out boards.ie, and you're unlikely to get an objective debate when someone's death is still felt acutely.

I should disclose that I believe I am a 4th or 5th cousin of Mr Cowan's but I cannot envisage ever being distressed by a Cowan's legacy thread, I just cannot see why someone doesn't start it today when he is alive instead of waiting until he is dead.

I don't know, I think I personally would be in favor of something like a 2 weeks grace period after a death before starting a legacy thread, while encouraging their being started while the person is still living.

The RIP thread, which looks a little more serious in Politics when dealing with a politician, might be of some consolation to any family and friends who read it.

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I think that it is partly to do with being a small country and with everyone knowing everyone. We've already had one poster identify themselves on the "legacy" thread as being a relative of Brian's.

It just strikes me that there is no immediate need to discuss the legacy as it will not change (Later10 I won't be giving out if you resurrect your Garret's legacy thread now), but there is the ability to cause additional pain to family and friends if any of them check out boards.ie, and you're unlikely to get an objective debate when someone's death is still felt acutely.

I should disclose that I believe I am a 4th or 5th cousin of Mr Cowan's but I cannot envisage ever being distressed by a Cowan's legacy thread, I just cannot see why someone doesn't start it today when he is alive instead of waiting until he is dead.

I don't know, I think I personally would be in favor of something like a 2 weeks grace period after a death before starting a legacy thread, while encouraging their being started while the person is still living.

The RIP thread, which looks a little more serious in Politics when dealing with a politician, might be of some consolation to any family and friends who read it.

Realistically, though, there's absolutely no chance of a two-week moratorium on discussing Brian Lenihan's legacy. Short of banning everyone from the Politics forum, obviously.

And don't think it hasn't crossed my mind.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Realistically, though, there's absolutely no chance of a two-week moratorium on discussing Brian Lenihan's legacy. Short of banning everyone from the Politics forum, obviously.

And don't think it hasn't crossed my mind.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I presume that includes yourself Scofflaw?

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

I presume that includes yourself Scofflaw?

No, I reckon I'd be OK. I'd start a thread maybe on daisies, or cats. I like cats. I could tidy a bit, too, maybe take the curtains down and wash them. Reconstitute that database.

domestically,
Scofflaw

Sand

you're unlikely to get an objective debate when someone's death is still felt acutely.

What derails condolence threads is when posters devitate from the standard "RIP" personal response and instead attempt to propose a positive spin on the individuals political or public record: i.e: "A tremendous loss to Ireland" or " A hugely courageous politician and servant of the people".

Once a political judgement, even a positive one, is introduced, then negative political judgements "a fool and liar" or "no loss to Ireland at all" follows like night follows day.

I think if condolence threads were restrained to actual condolences then you wouldnt see the outbreaks of political debate, which might be upsetting to family members.

@Elliot Rosewater

but the thread was clearly set up to offer condolences and not the kind of commentary that developed.

Cookie_Monster didnt introduce the commentary that developed - he reacted to a post which claimed that Brian Lenihan would be a great loss to the nation. Many, many, many people have been impacted by the decisions made by Lenihan during his time in office and they can hold very strong feelings about it (see the number of thanks on his post). If the thread was set up to offer condolences, centered on remembering Brian Lenihan as a father and husband, then it went off track when people attempted to impose postive political judgements on Brian Lenihans record as part of the condolences.

RDM_83 again

This is a good example of the way Politics is ran in a reactive manner rather than forward thinking, I didn't get a single reply to this comment last year (not even a 'no, this is the most appropriate place for them), but once proper controversy emerges!

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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

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

posted last March

Eliot Rosewater

There has been a Feedback thread set up about this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056296062#

Sand wrote: »

Cookie_Monster didnt introduce the commentary that developed - he reacted to a post which claimed that Brian Lenihan would be a great loss to the nation. Many, many, many people have been impacted by the decisions made by Lenihan during his time in office and they can hold very strong feelings about it (see the number of thanks on his post). If the thread was set up to offer condolences, centered on remembering Brian Lenihan as a father and husband, then it went off track when people attempted to impose postive political judgements on Brian Lenihans record as part of the condolences.

I see your point. Effectively, positive political judgements seem appropriate in a condolences thread whereas negative ones don't. I don't think that's a problem though, unless you want to apply a strict rule (no political commentary of any kind) and I don't see any reason to apply such a rule.

It's like any time or place where a dead person is being remembered. At my father's funeral I might comment on his teaching skills, or his heavy involvement in Tidy Towns in our community. Am I going to say to my mother "remember that time he shouted at both of us?" By the standard you expect of condolences threads here, me not saying that while saying the other stuff would make me a hypocrite. But I don't see it as a problem because positive judgements and negative judgements are qualitatively different in the these kinds of contexts.

And even if you don't agree with that, that's the norm that's expected and socially upheld. That's what made Cookie_Monster's post so bad: it was obvious there was going to be a backlash against it. And it would have been very easy to set up a "Legacy of Brain Lenihan thread." It was an ill judged comment that was blatantly against the expected contribution on that thread.

RDM_83 again

So is that a Mod view that a negative statement about some ones legacy is not for these threads or is it personal?

In relation to your example
I would compare Boards.ie to the lounge of a pub or cafe rather than the alter of a church etc (though I understand the libel risks etc). If an important man in a small town died who's decisions caused a lot of problems for people, they may not say what they feel outside the graveyard, but they will be talking about it later.

Eliot Rosewater

RDM_83 again wrote: »

So is that a Mod view that a negative statement about some ones legacy is not for these threads or is it personal?

I would imagine the consensus. (I'm willing to be shown wrong?)

RDM_83 again wrote: »

In relation to your example
I would compare Boards.ie to the lounge of a pub or cafe rather than the alter of a church etc (though I understand the libel risks etc). If an important man in a small town died who's decisions caused a lot of problems for people, they may not say what they feel outside the graveyard, but they will be talking about it later.

But the way the thread was set up it was obvious that the expectation was that it be only for condolences. If, after the funeral in the pub, we are in a circle discussing our friend's legacy, would you be at all surprised if we lashed out at another person in the pub who came up to us and started bitching about him? Fine, keep it to your corner (i.e., set up a thread to discuss the legacy), but butting in on people who are clearly just offering condolences is extremely ill-judged.

Scofflaw

RDM_83 again wrote: »

So is that a Mod view that a negative statement about some ones legacy is not for these threads or is it personal?

In relation to your example
I would compare Boards.ie to the lounge of a pub or cafe rather than the alter of a church etc (though I understand the libel risks etc). If an important man in a small town died who's decisions caused a lot of problems for people, they may not say what they feel outside the graveyard, but they will be talking about it later.

I tend towards this latter view, and Sand's, but in terms of social conventions, Lockstep is entirely right - and because the social conventions are so strong, someone posting what Cookie_Monster did is inviting the kind of outraged response he generated, and is unlikely not to realise it. Despite that, I can't bring myself to censure CM, because, as Sand says, eulogising a politician as a politician strikes me as equally unacceptable, particularly one whose choices we are currently living with.

Comments about Lenihan's bravery in fighting cancer, the loss to his family, his personal characteristics, all seem to me to be an acceptable part of such eulogies. Comments praising his political decisions...no. That seems to me to offer an opportunity to engage in a little propaganda knowing that you won't be contradicted because people are unwilling to break the taboo on speaking ill of the recently dead.

cordially,
Scofflaw

southsiderosie

I understand that condolences are important culturally, but I still think that a 'RIP' thread is ill-placed in the Politics forum. But I suppose I am in the minority here, so I would suggest that if there are going to be RIP threads, there should not be any commentary on their political legacy - positive or negative. That should be for a separate 'legacy' thread. Allowing only positive comments would seem inconsistent.

I'd also add that I don't think there needs to be a moratorium on legacy threads. If people's sensibilities are that delicate, then they can refrain from reading the thread for 72 hours; 2 weeks, whatever. They would also have to refrain from reading newspapers or watching the news, since most major media outlets have pre-prepared obituaries for older public figures that usually delve into the good and bad of their political careers, and are published almost instantaneously when it is confirmed that a public figure has died.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

but butting in on people who are clearly just offering condolences is extremely ill-judged.

It appears to me, now it's just a suspicion, that you are purposely ignoring the fact that its clearly not 'just offering condolences'. Saying 'RIP, thinking of his family' is very different from 'RIP to a great statesman, who steered this country wisely through difficult times'. If you cannot recognise that political statements are seeping into the condolences thread unless those political sentiments are negative then you have missed the point of those calling for an end to RIP threads (or at least an end to the current form that they take)

Nodin

Indeed. When Mrs Thatcher shuffles off, I expect her to be a springboard for massive trolling 'condolences' from all sides, some well cloaked, others bricks in newspaper.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

Indeed. When Mrs Thatcher shuffles off, I expect her to be a springboard for massive trolling 'condolences' from all sides, some well cloaked, others bricks in newspaper.

I loathe Maggoe Thatchers political ideology with a passion, however I wouldnt be against people offering condolences when she passes, I'd wish RIP too. What I would be against, and I'm against it with all condolence threads is people posting opinion on a political career which in others eyes may smack of political revisionism and where it cannot be challenged. I've no wish to get into a brawl on an RIP thread so the content of what people write should be moderated appropriately.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

I loathe Maggoe Thatchers political ideology with a passion, however I wouldnt be against people offering condolences when she passes, I'd wish RIP too. What I would be against, and I'm against it with all condolence threads is people posting opinion on a political career which in others eyes may smack of political revisionism and where it cannot be challenged. I've no wish to get into a brawl on an RIP thread so the content of what people write should be moderated appropriately.

....well you know its not RIP that I have a problem with......

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

....well you know its not RIP that I have a problem with......

Me neither, not in the slightest. But the posters over on the feedback thread seem to have difficulty comprehending that and maybe I have it wrong because I haven't posted on feedback before but I haven't really gotten any moderator feedback. They've also been unusually quiet here about giving the official position on what is acceptable in an RIP thread. But I know they get busy.

later12

Hi,
Is there a reason why it is possible to post charts, graphs and other images in all political forums except for the EU forum?

Nodin

later10 wrote: »

Hi,
Is there a reason why it is possible to post charts, graphs and other images in all political forums except for the EU forum?

They don't want you to see the truth No idea, actually.

oscarBravo

later10 wrote: »

Is there a reason why it is possible to post charts, graphs and other images in all political forums except for the EU forum?

I can't think of any past reason why it would have been set up that way, so I've changed the setting. Let me know if you're still having problems.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That might be it, I vaguely remember some people attempting to argue via poster rather than via English.

oscarBravo

It can be turned off again if needs be, but it might be better for everyone concerned to remove the annoying posters instead.



(See what I did there?)

ei.sdraob

The politics charter points here to discuss issues with moderation, so here goes:

It seems today the rules regarding entertaining conspiracy theories have been thrown out the window, there are now several posts in several threads including posts by a moderator talking about a plot by rating agencies to bring down the euro (or something like that)

Whats up with that

nesf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The politics charter points here to discuss issues with moderation, so here goes:

It seems today the rules regarding entertaining conspiracy theories have been thrown out the window, there are now several posts in several threads including posts by a moderator talking about a plot by rating agencies to bring down the euro (or something like that)

Whats up with that

Report them please and they'll be looked at.

ei.sdraob

On further thoughts, leave em

Future historians will find it interesting the carry on and deflection/blame coming from euro politicians around the time of the Great Recession as reflected in the comments on this forum.

southsiderosie

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The politics charter points here to discuss issues with moderation, so here goes:

It seems today the rules regarding entertaining conspiracy theories have been thrown out the window, there are now several posts in several threads including posts by a moderator talking about a plot by rating agencies to bring down the euro (or something like that)

Whats up with that

I think it's a stretch to go from "ratings agencies have their own interests" to "it's a plot to bring down the euro/the Irish/whomever. Certainly the ratings agencies have not covered themselves in glory over the last several years, so I don't think it in the realm of the tin-hat wearers to question their credibility.

ei.sdraob

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think it's a stretch to go from "ratings agencies have their own interests" to "it's a plot to bring down the euro/the Irish/whomever. Certainly the ratings agencies have not covered themselves in glory over the last several years, so I don't think it in the realm of the tin-hat wearers to question their credibility.

Its one thing to question their credibility (as I have myself done in the past on this forum btw)
its another to get distracted (for the second time! we had "evil speculators" last year when Greek crisis first erupted) by accusations that its all the fault of SomeoneElseTM, and loose sight of politicians being unable to agree and solve this crisis.