Memorial Threads

[The Romulan Republic]

You don't do a lot of things in real life that you do on the board. So what?

Maybe I'm a bit more casual or agressive online, but personally I don't think I'm too different from how I behave in real life. At least I try not to be. But for most people, your point about behaving differently online is probably accurate.

Note that being online does not count as an excuse for every sort of jackassery.

If they're not adding anything worth discussing, it's a +1. Why should that change just because it's a memorial? Especially for an event that happened years ago, or before they were even born?

I see nothing wrong with people given their respects just because someone else has done so before. But regardless, I think part of the reason I was offended by this was because of what I percieved as an implied assumption about the motive of the posters in question, ie that they were posting in memorial threads specifically in order to pad their post count rather than out of a sincere desire to show respect/rememberence for the dead.

It's hardly evenly or swiftly enforced. Especially when someone posts a memorial thread that's guaranteed to be controversial. In that case why the hell should people be expected to stay polite?

Well if the rules are not being enforced, then perhaps we need more moderators, or alternatively ones that actually do their job. Which was sort of my point: we need to enforce existing rules. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[General Zod]

I see nothing wrong with people given their respects just because someone else has done so before. But regardless, I think part of the reason I was offended by this was because of what I percieved as an implied assumption about the motive of the posters in question, ie that they were posting in memorial threads specifically in order to pad their post count rather than out of a sincere desire to show respect/rememberence for the dead.

Who gives a shit about motivation? We're not mind readers, and the proof is in the pudding. The posts add nothing from a discussion standpoint, ergo, they're +1s.

Well if the rules are not being enforced, then perhaps we need more moderators, or alternatively ones that actually do their job. Which was sort of my point: we need to enforce existing rules. Thank you for agreeing with me.

I never disagreed with that part. What I disagreed with was your bizarre insistence that memorial threads be treated as a sacred cow for some reason.

[The Romulan Republic]

So in other words, you want a memorial thread to be just another location for +1 spam, and have a whole other thread for actual discussion (useful or not TBD). So why shouldn't the memorial thread just be flushed to Testing then? And if it's in Testing and someone decides to be a dick, it'll get locked and forgotten by the time it gets to 3 pages anyway, and that will limit how many pairs of panties will get knotted over it.

I can see arguments either way as to weather such threads should be in testing or not. However, up until now I do not believe I have said that I think they should not be in testing, which is, I believe, the current rule. In fact, I have argued that in general we should be enforcing our existing rules rather than writing new ones. It seems to me that you're picking a fight over something I never said.

Melodramatic much?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I believe that their are deep problems with the board as it currently is, and that the recent surge of threads on this subject are a symptom of this. This is my personal take on what causes a lot of these problems. I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

[Turin]

It seems to me that you're picking a fight over something I never said.

Don't be silly. You've been hemming over whether they're appropriate in Testing, and I'm making the argument that your reasoning leads to a good argument to stick them in Testing where they don't clutter up the board. Hardly picking a fight.

[Darth Fanboy]

I thought we decided long ago to put memorial threads in testing, same as birthdays and announcements for people leaving on vacations. They are nice, but do not contribute, Testing's auto-deletion takes care of the rest.

Personally i'd like threads such as those for Pearl Harbor, or D-Day, or ANZAC Day to be left alone by people who want to make a statement, justified or not, because generally those threads are started to respect those who died, unless someone starts being a jingoistic idiot.

I don't think there should be any board policy on it though. As a supporter of free speech i'd be hypocritical if I wanted to stifle anyone who wanted to speak up otherwise. My advice to people who want to remember historical events on the day they happen would be to post something appropriate in their sigs or avatars for the day.

[Coyote]

To be honest, it seems like memorial threads are in a way a sort of pinata for flamebait. Considering how worldwide --and political-- this place is, I can guarantee that there are no "absolute" agreements to found on world events that lead to wars, genocides, etc. Even things like the Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocide can very, very easily become springboards for argument.

If we are to have them at all, I say we should put them in Testing.

And you know what? If someone starts a Memorial Thread and someone else has a glib political statement about it dissing the whole thing, I say they take it to the goddamn Coliseum and fight it out.

[Havok]

Post the Memorial Thread in testing. Post a discussion of the event thread in the appropriate forum.

[Edi]

I can see the argument for restricting them to testing simply for practical purposes of not filling up the board. But isn't that already the rule? As for the flame wars that appear in them, doesn't that fall under existing rules about thread highjacking? Isn't this just another case of people suggesting new rules when the existing ones, evenly and swiftly enforced by the moderators, would solve the bulk of the problmes?

It's hardly evenly or swiftly enforced. Especially when someone posts a memorial thread that's guaranteed to be controversial. In that case why the hell should people be expected to stay polite?

Well if the rules are not being enforced, then perhaps we need more moderators, or alternatively ones that actually do their job. Which was sort of my point: we need to enforce existing rules. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Hmm, perhaps you need to take a look at what Mike said in the Pearl Harbor fiasco thread. Whether or not a thread is a memorial thread, peddling bullshit (even if it is commonly accepted due to ignorance) is no excuse and activates the aspect of the board that has no obligation to respect anyone's sacred cows. Especially if the threads are in the permanent sections of the forum.

I'm also going to state right now that the memorials in Testing rule will be enforced ruthlessly from now on unless the thread contains useful discussion. As you may or may not have noted, the Pearl Harbor thread for this year despite its heated nature, is exactly that, which is why it stays and I stated as much in there.

[K. A. Pital]

The Pearl Harbor thread was opened with a post which in NO way implied it was a memorial thread. "Anything new" about the event does not imply "..." and "+1, sad" threads.

Pulp Hero rushed to make it one, but since when the second post, and not the OP, defines the thread's aim?

[The Romulan Republic]

Hmm, perhaps you need to take a look at what Mike said in the Pearl Harbor fiasco thread. Whether or not a thread is a memorial thread, peddling bullshit (even if it is commonly accepted due to ignorance) is no excuse and activates the aspect of the board that has no obligation to respect anyone's sacred cows. Especially if the threads are in the permanent sections of the forum.

I don't for a moment disagree. Regardless of what I've said before, I would like to state now that I have no problem with someone correct bullshit in a memorial thread. Personally though I'd hope that in general people would show restraint, and that we could avoid such threads turning into flame wars or being out right highjacked. If you have a major discussion/disagreement, why not take it up in another thread?

[Axis Kast]

The Pearl Harbor thread was opened with a post which in NO way implied it was a memorial thread. "Anything new" about the event does not imply "..." and "+1, sad" threads.

Pulp Hero rushed to make it one, but since when the second post, and not the OP, defines the thread's aim?

Weird. Somehow, I started off by reading Pulp Hero's post, and assumed that it was the OP.

I do find your very negative reaction, which is apparently no more than a complaint about the relative lack of memorial to events you, personally, find important, extremely strange. If you feel strongly about an issue, go ahead and post a thread. You'll even find that Pulp Hero explicitly recognized the comparability of sacrifice in other theaters of the war, and, indeed, in all war.

If Mike wanted to combat "wanking" by people who trot our canards -- although he jumped early -- you seemed more worried about the subject of that wanking, than its mere existence.

[General Zod]

I don't for a moment disagree. Regardless of what I've said before, I would like to state now that I have no problem with someone correct bullshit in a memorial thread. Personally though I'd hope that in general people would show restraint, and that we could avoid such threads turning into flame wars or being out right highjacked. If you have a major discussion/disagreement, why not take it up in another thread?

Why should people have to make a whole new thread if the subject they disagree about already has a thread discussing it?

[Darth Fanboy]

Why should people have to make a whole new thread if the subject they disagree about already has a thread discussing it?

IIRC that was done when JP 2 Died, either that or one of the events surrounding his succession. I don't remember enough details though to recall if it was a good idea or not.

[Axis Kast]

Why should people have to make a whole new thread if the subject they disagree about already has a thread discussing it?

To avoid engendering bad feeling. You don't go to a funeral to develop critiques of somebody's life. And, lest you say, "But I don't care how I make people feel! This board is about challenges!" then I point again to the fact that you won't find may open ears or welcoming smiles at a funeral. It seems like common sense, to me.

[Edi]

Why should people have to make a whole new thread if the subject they disagree about already has a thread discussing it?

IIRC that was done when JP 2 Died, either that or one of the events surrounding his succession. I don't remember enough details though to recall if it was a good idea or not.

That was done out of consideration because it was known to be a fiery subject beforehand. It did not mean that it had to be done for every thread. And at the time it wasn't a memorial thread, it was a current news thread, so the memorial thread ran concurrently to the discussion.

[General Zod]

To avoid engendering bad feeling. You don't go to a funeral to develop critiques of somebody's life. And, lest you say, "But I don't care how I make people feel! This board is about challenges!" then I point again to the fact that you won't find may open ears or welcoming smiles at a funeral. It seems like common sense, to me.

Why do people keep comparing this to real life funerals? There's a lot of things you don't do in real life that is perfectly acceptable here, so it's really a poor analogy. As far as engendering bad feeling, so what? We already make fun of a lot of things that engender bad feelings, (ie - religious beliefs), so why should memorial threads be sacred grounds?

[Edi]

Why should people have to make a whole new thread if the subject they disagree about already has a thread discussing it?

To avoid engendering bad feeling. You don't go to a funeral to develop critiques of somebody's life. And, lest you say, "But I don't care how I make people feel! This board is about challenges!" then I point again to the fact that you won't find may open ears or welcoming smiles at a funeral. It seems like common sense, to me.

Just drop the subject, Kast. Avoiding specifically engendering bad feeling is one thing, but if someone is spouting bullshit and challenging it gets some people's panties in a twist due to some notion of the thread being somehow a sacred cow, too fucking bad. Especially when the side (in general, not talking about a specific person) taking umbrage has had more than its share of incidents where there has been thoroughly intentional trolling and pissing on other people's similar threads.

Memorial threads are not immune if someone posts bullshit and the Pearl Harbor thread did not start out as memorial per se. The post that tried to turn it into one also contained enough bullshit to quickstart the flamewar. Hopefully the thread was an educational experience for the participants. I know I learned stuff from it.

[Axis Kast]

Why do people keep comparing this to real life funerals?

Because it's a question of recognizing (A) when it is appropriate to make a certain kind of comment; (B) when it is efficacious to make a certain kind of comment. The time for frank, enlightening talk is not during a memorial (which the thread in question was not, from the beginning, of course).

There's a lot of things you don't do in real life that is perfectly acceptable here, so it's really a poor analogy. As far as engendering bad feeling, so what? We already make fun of a lot of things that engender bad feelings, (ie - religious beliefs), so why should memorial threads be sacred grounds?

And somehow, I can't draw any attention to the fact that this has always been one of the board's greatest liabilities. It explains why people get so wrapped up in the shit-fests; why the seeming logic of points popular across SD.net don't always "get through" to the "recalcitrant;" and why we have so many problems, qualitatively speaking. This place has a culture that glorifies put-downs in the name of service to science and rationality. Yet it is forgotten that rhetoric is about appeal as well as about truth. You can have the one as well as the other, but each, on its own, is flawed by comparison with a combination, which is stronger because it heightens the likelihood of reception and a change in the other person's opinion that can prevent a return to the same topic later on.

Just drop the subject, Kast. Avoiding specifically engendering bad feeling is one thing, but if someone is spouting bullshit and challenging it gets some people's panties in a twist due to some notion of the thread being somehow a sacred cow, too fucking bad. Especially when the side (in general, not talking about a specific person) taking umbrage has had more than its share of incidents where there has been thoroughly intentional trolling and pissing on other people's similar threads.

Except it turned out that the whole "spouting bullshit" thing was false. Pulp Hero made the following comment: "For all the sailors who died aboard those ships, they died in an attack they didn't know was coming, by an enemy that had yet to declare itself." Neither of those facts is incorrect. The sailors did not know an attack was coming, and the Japanese had yet to declare themselves, in spite of suspicion at high levels, and the general anticipation of war.

[Stark]

To avoid engendering bad feeling. You don't go to a funeral to develop critiques of somebody's life. And, lest you say, "But I don't care how I make people feel! This board is about challenges!" then I point again to the fact that you won't find may open ears or welcoming smiles at a funeral. It seems like common sense, to me.

A memorial thread isn't a funeral in any sense at all. Nobody knew them; nobody was invited to inter the body, and no body is being interred. Events are not recent or necessarily personal. It's just some guy in a room full of people saying 'hey guys it's sad xyz happened' and expecting everyone to give a fucking shit about their stupid crap. Nothing akin to a 'memorial' can occur on the internet except by mutual agreement - something you're extremely unlikely to find on a public and diverse board. And why would you even fucking want to? How the fuck does a bunch of '...' or '+1 I'm sad' posts make anyone feel better or emotionally heal or whatever? It doesn't; it's just reinforcement for symbols of verneration. It's no surprise that the threads that stir shit up like this are religious; either American patriotism or Judeo-Christian. Strong feeligns + disagreement = don't expect people to play nice.

That's what testing is for.

[Axis Kast]

A memorial thread isn't a funeral in any sense at all. Nobody knew them; nobody was invited to inter the body, and no body is being interred. Events are not recent or necessarily personal. It's just some guy in a room full of people saying 'hey guys it's sad xyz happened' and expecting everyone to give a fucking shit about their stupid crap. Nothing akin to a 'memorial' can occur on the internet except by mutual agreement - something you're extremely unlikely to find on a public and diverse board. And why would you even fucking want to? How the fuck does a bunch of '...' or '+1 I'm sad' posts make anyone feel better or emotionally heal or whatever? It doesn't; it's just reinforcement for symbols of verneration. It's no surprise that the threads that stir shit up like this are religious; either American patriotism or Judeo-Christian. Strong feeligns + disagreement = don't expect people to play nice.

You'll have to forgive me for failing to recognize that somebody's desire to take a moment to acknowledge the deaths of servicemen is just another example of inappropriate patriotism that tends to generate disagreement.

You're also the . . . what, thirtieth? person to miss the point entirely. Who cares why anybody started the thread? The rational person would recognize that it's just going to create a shit-storm if they go in there and wax political. I link this to one of the preeminent problems that I believe this community faces: lack of understanding about how to have arguments in a manner that doesn't polarize at the outset.

[Stark]

You just proved my point. You think it's a big important ceremonial cultural respect thing, and other people don't. So guess what? Memorial threads don't work for that very reason. I don't care about your patriotism or your religion, and any thread about such is a discussion thread and will be treated as such. If you're so mentally broken you think a bunch of '...' is somehow acknowledging or showing respect to something and you want to encourage people to do so, that's just fucking wierd.

It amuses me a great deal to see you of all people say that someone expecting everyone to agree with them is fine, but disagreeing with them is creating a shit-storm. While I agree with you with regard to the nature of discussion here, unless memorial threads get special protection - which they don't deserve - any involving strong feelings will inevitably devolve into an argument, because some people think 'now someone's dead we should respect them' as you do, and others think 'no fuck that he was a dickstain and you can't stop me saying that so suck a cock dickcheese'.

So just make them in fucking testing instead of post-count padding with special 'play nice' threads about stupid crap. I will join this bandwagon by making a memorial thread about absolutely everything that ever happened and get a postcount of 50,000 in one day and get anyone who creates discussion in these threads banned. ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEATHS or shut up!

[Axis Kast]

You just proved my point. You think it's a big important ceremonial cultural respect thing, and other people don't.

What does it matter what you think? What good purpose is served by deciding to raise issues there, instead of in a second thread?

That's my point. It would seem that one could obtain the same intellectual benefit, with less trouble all around, by voluntarily steering clear of memorial threads. Out of common sense (who needs to pick a fight?) rather than principle. What I struggle with is why anybody would purposely enter a memorial thread and pick a fight -- particularly when the topic is something like the dead at Pearl Harbor, who can't really be called guilty of very much.

I point out to you, too, that the argument never developed into a discussion of whether nationalisms or patriotisms are silly, or anything -- just about whether the people being normally remembered on this day were stupid.

[Stark]

Boards aren't about 'good purpose'; they (particularly this one) are about discussion. Making a thread and expressly denying discussion because it'll hurt your precious feelings is fucking stupid; why make it at all? Public expressions of subservience or support or whatever are disgusting and self-indulgent enough, but expecting special immunities for them?

And while the Pearl Harbour thing is both a bad example and not something I agree with - so what? People might be assholes and turn things into flamefests, but unless that trend is addressed in general terms you're not going to see a change, because that's what SDN is at the moment. I strongly resist the idea of making any type of thread immune to negative commentary for obvious intellectual reasons, and I will sabotage any attempt to do so with spurious 'memorial' threads about things that people really hate, but that doesn't mean I support the idea of busting into threads and derailing them.

Again, the whole motive of memorial threads is alien to me, and apparently a lot of other people too. Should we have 'salute the flag' threads too?

[Axis Kast]

Boards aren't about 'good purpose'; they (particularly this one) are about discussion.

The capacity of this community to advance the "truths" it holds as either self-evident or supremely important is much diminished by the failure to practice good manners and public diplomacy.

We had people coming almost out of the woodwork to express hope that they would still be allowed to flame all those "stupid" people out there when we discussed problems to, and potential changes in, board culture. Then we have people who express profound sadness over things like Prop. 8. I can't help but feel that SD.net members would have a lot more success propagating what they believe is valuable and socially useful ideology if they'd just remember that they're not going to make people want to listen to them by referring to "rednecks," "racists," or "Republitards." I also don't see how anyone can make hay in a memorial thread when they open fire with all barrels. That seems more like an act that stokes the ego (through smugness at being responsible for chaos) than an act that really makes people think.

And while the Pearl Harbour thing is both a bad example and not something I agree with - so what? People might be assholes and turn things into flamefests, but unless that trend is addressed in general terms you're not going to see a change, because that's what SDN is at the moment.

My proposed corrective was not a rule giving "cover" or sanction to immaculate memorial. The corrective was for people to exercise a little prior judgment and say, "Ah. A memorial thread. Maybe I should just ignore that. Hm. But I have something to say. Well. A new thread will do."

[Stark]

Yeah I know, but we both know that won't work, given the history of the board. Either they get special treatment in the rules of it'll continue the way it is, so obviously nothing will change. Discussion and flames are confused by a lot of people.