What is the current policy on celebrating someone's death?

[Aurelian]

I just made the mistake of reading through the YES!! SWEET! (now who's the next one gonna be?) thread originated by DemonArchangel.

The thread is now closed, and Tosa edited DA's post to explain that while he had the right to express his views about the Catholic Church, he didn't have the right to celebrate someone's death. I guess I'm using the past-tense here because I also gathered from that message that DA will now be banned from the Tavern.

So, just in order to clarify the situation, I wanted to check in with the moderators and make sure that the nature of the offense was correctly identified. Was DA banned because he celebrated someone's death, or was he banned because he celebrated a generally beloved person's death? Or was he banned for some other reason entirely?

I only ask this because when Arafat died back in November of last year, there was some celebration going on (currently 26 pages in the past) from the same people who were offended by DA's post. I also expect to see a similar celebration whenever Castro kicks the bucket.

And yes, I realize the political and moral distinctions between Arafat, Castro, and the Pope. That's not the issue. Was the celebration of someone's death the problem, was it the celebration of that particular person's death, or was the real issue trolling?

I need to know the policy before I post my Johnnie Cochran and Frank Perdue threads; and I want to be ready for Jerry Falwell.

Thanks in advance.

[Redleg]

It was the trolling I beleive which got the thread closed. But you will have to wait for Tosa for confirmation.

[Big_John]

oh sweet baby jesus, there's going to be a jerry falwell thread?! i gotta stock up on beer.. i'm throwing a wild party when he kicks the bucket!

uh, anyway, that's a good point aurelian. i personally don't see the big deal with DAs original post. i thought it was kinda funny actually, if tactless. but i'm not a mod...

[Proletariat]

I'dve thought it was funny until he displayed so much emotional investment on the topic. Then it just seemed idiotic.

[Fragony]

Must have been drunk, first time I see him posting like that.

[Big_John]

I'dve thought it was funny until he displayed so much emotional investment on the topic. Then it just seemed idiotic.

i read the post right after DA made it, before anyone had replied. then i didn't check it until it had been closed (because i thought the thread would probably degenerate into what it apparently did).

but i see what you're saying.. i mean, even if one is violently anti-christian, i don't understand how the death of the pope could be seen as something to celebrate. it's not like they can't replace him. did JP the deuce have a positive effect on conversion rates or something?

[Pindar]

Whether its the declared issue or not: we have the juxtaposition of a terrorist, a dictator and two religious figures. What an odd sense of moral anemia.

[Big_John]

we have the juxtaposition of a terrorist, a dictator and two religious figures.

it's a bit of stretch to call falwell a terrorist, don't you think?

[Goofball]

Whether its the declared issue or not: we have the juxtaposition of a terrorist, a dictator and two religious figures. What an odd sense of moral anemia.

Another example of moral anemia are people who believe that their own beliefs are so far superior to everybody else's that anybody disagreeing with them are morally anemic.

There are many who believe that the Pope has played a terrible (if not downright evil) role in the spread of AIDS in Africa by steadfastly refusing to use the Church's considerable influence in that region to promote the use of condoms. In fact, by doing quite the opposite, actually forbidding the use of condoms, one could make the argument that he was actively trying to exacerbate the HIV epidemic in Africa.

I don't say I believe this to be the case, though the argument could certainly be made.

What I am saying is that there are many moral people (though their morality may differ from yours, Pindar), who might very well consider the Pope to be below Arafat's level. After all, there are millions who consider Arafat to be a freedom fighter.

But to call them morally anemic is simple arrogance.

I personally was among those who was very happy to see Arafat die, and though I have not reread that thread, I am certain that my posts were not very complimentary to the decedent.

But if the mods are going to ban or warn DA for being disrespectful to one dead public figure, I think they should have another look at the Arafat thread and apply some retroactive bannings for the disrespect that was shown to another.

Either that or they should acknowledge that Org is a forum based on Christian/western values and morality, and dissenters will not be tolerated.

[Togakure]

i read the post right after DA made it, before anyone had replied. then i didn't check it until it had been closed (because i thought the thread would probably degenerate into what it apparently did).

but i see what you're saying.. i mean, even if one is violently anti-christian, i don't understand how the death of the pope could be seen as something to celebrate. it's not like they can't replace him. did JP the deuce have a positive effect on conversion rates or something?

I think the issue is not so deep in the detail of what was said. Folks are free to be anti-whatever as they will. They are not free to violate the board's policy in expressing their anti-whatever. Staff has been very lenient in enforcing these policies, resulting in an increase in the pushing of boundaries. It seems obvious to me that DA's post was intended to rile the pro-pope folks who patronize the backroom. Harassing patrons is explicitly in violation of the board's policy. I won't bother to paste the policy here as I'm sure you are familiar with it. I too read the initial post before anyone responded, and predicted accurately what the outcome would be. I was surprised that the thread stayed open as long as it did.

Fraggony, where you been man? DA's been quiet for a while, but he's notorious for posting borderline topics in order to delight in the outrage of other patrons. Heh, I admit I often chuckle at how easily and shamelessly people take the bait, hook and sinker. But, all it would take would be for a subject to which I am sensitive to be posted in such a manner, and I would likely end up on the hook, thrashing in outrage. I've been hooked before, and it wasn't pretty.

The board doesn't benefit from this kind of crap. It's cheap, crass entertainment at best, and this board is better than that.