At what point does someone deserve their own thread?

[Joey Russ 7,229]

8 minutes ago, FixedBusiness said:

I've seen threads being started about someone who is dead already (or someone who is nearly dead, Tom Petty comes to mind). Please don't do that.

In Tom Petty’s case, his heart attack was posted in a ton of threads, so his own thread was warranted in that case...

[Death Impends 8,008]

9 minutes ago, FixedBusiness said:

I've seen threads being started about someone who is dead already (or someone who is nearly dead, Tom Petty comes to mind). Please don't do that.

 

It can be justified if it's a particularly major figure and/or the circumstances of their death are curious enough to warrant a lot of discussion.

[Joey Russ 7,229]

15 hours ago, Spade_Cooley said:

3) Are they in the public eye? Threads about hermits won't work, which is why I wouldn't start a, say, Bobbie Gentry thread. However, Jenny Ditski got a thread from me because she was very vocal on Twitter during her final months.

I’m so sorry. I had to be that person.  

  

[maryportfuncity 10,658]

9 hours ago, Predictor said:

How about a rule that if a new thread doesn't get a minimum of x replies (that are on-topic) within y months, it gets deleted?

 

But to be fair, unless you're close to exceeding the website's bandwidth limit, I think there should be a leniency in terms of what is thread-worthy and what's not.

 

 

Not a bad rule but...

 

There are some people who have a health crisis, recover and re-lapse so their threads fall into oblivion but get revived again. 

[Sir Creep 7,070]

18 hours ago, DevonDeathTrip said:

I've got no problem with any new threads at all, providing they aren't duplicates - for example I think Gerry Adams had at least three at some point before I merged them all.   I suppose graphic porn, gore or absolutely anything by Zorders remains completely off limits,  but otherwise members should just do what they feel they have to do.   

 

If the thread isn't popular it will fade into obscurity, possibly after Sir Creep has hurled some abuse at the OP, and if the thread is good it will provoke discussion, which is always a good thing.  I do have sympathy for everybody's different views on this, but it is impossible to please everyone and I happen to think the completely slack style of moderating here on Deathlist is one of the things that makes this forum a bit special.

You say that like it's a bad thing....

[Sir Creep 7,070]

14 hours ago, Joey Russ said:

In Tom Petty’s case, his heart attack was posted in a ton of threads, so his own thread was warranted in that case...

You've stated a fact and a conclusion with nothing to tie them together. 

[Sir Creep 7,070]

14 hours ago, FixedBusiness said:

I've seen threads being started about someone who is dead already (or someone who is nearly dead, Tom Petty comes to mind). Please don't do that.

My rule #3.
3. AAARRRGGHHH -- Is the person DECEASED?  Why do you fuckers open threads for individuals AFTER they've died?  For fucking tribute's sake?  Moronic.  You had your chance whilst living, you blew it.  Let it go.

[msc 18,486]

15 minutes ago, Sir Creep said:

My rule #3.
3. AAARRRGGHHH -- Is the person DECEASED?  Why do you fuckers open threads for individuals AFTER they've died?  For fucking tribute's sake?  Moronic.  You had your chance whilst living, you blew it.  Let it go.

 

For the record, most of us don't. If you see a new thread by a regular for someone who has just died, it's because the conversation has taken up a lot of posts elsewhere (usually on multiple threads) so the mods chuck it all together. See Bowie, David Gest, Alan Rickman, OK much of 2016 tbh...

[Toast 16,155]

On 20/06/2018 at 14:21, Sir Creep said:

Good question(s).
It irks me that people really skew the 'celeb' line to post whore.  I've called them out.  And your post here, Spade, is subconsciously doing the same and I applaud the statement in the form of questions.
1. Are they ill (and I mean ILL not hangnail rushed to hospital for heat exhaustion, I mean ill having something called a 'di-ag-no-sis'.  In fact let's use that as a rule.  The person needs a diagnosis of either an inoperable, incurable, or terminal illness.  Anything less isn't ill enough for a thread.  Obviously heart attacks strokes etc, if BAD (not Kevin Smith e.g.), can be substituted.  Really Fn old may take the place of illness, but let's say at least 95 for that to kick in.
2. Are they celeb?   Not necessarily DL famous, but at least they had to be somebody that will garner a large amount of national (and hopefully worldwide) newspaper attention when they go.  That takes a little subjectivity out of the equation.  Anyway, this is the biggest violation.  And you know who violate this -- the 'teens' in this group.  OK let's say the 'under 25 crowd'.  They know who they are.  
If you don't understand the difference between starting a thread for Kenny Rogers and starting a thread for some guy Kenny _____ who was a star midfielder for your favourite team Southhampton, you're lucky Sir C isn't an Admin.
3. AAARRRGGHHH -- Is the person DECEASED?  Why do you fuckers open threads for individuals AFTER they've died?  For fucking tribute's sake?  Moronic.  You had your chance whilst living, you blew it.  Let it go.
4. Are you post-whoring?  Why yes....yes you probably are.
 

 

Actually, in the case of sudden unexpected death,  we wouldn't have "had our chance whilst living" unless we broke your Rule #1.

[CarolAnn 926]

You are all overthinking this. 

 

Open a thread, watch with amusement as people get overwrought about something that doesn't really matter, wait for someone with a banhammer to decide if it needs to be open. They have the only opinion that matters around here - everyone else is pissing in the wind.

 

In the meantime, go live your real life. 

[Sir Creep 7,070]

On 21/06/2018 at 10:04, Toast said:

 

Actually, in the case of sudden unexpected death,  we wouldn't have "had our chance whilst living" unless we broke your Rule #1.

So post about it in the appropriate existing thread.  I know that is hard for you to wrap your head around.

[Toast 16,155]

2 hours ago, Sir Creep said:

On 21/06/2018 at 16:04, Toast said:

 

Actually, in the case of sudden unexpected death,  we wouldn't have "had our chance whilst living" unless we broke your Rule #1.

So post about it in the appropriate existing thread.  I know that is hard for you to wrap your head around.

 

But you said - oh, never mind.

[Zsa Zsa's leg 884]

I've only made a few threads that I can recall: David/Charles Koch, Alberto Fujimori, Harry Reid, and Walter Mondale. 

[YoungWillz 21,076]

18 minutes ago, Zsa Zsa's leg said:

I've only made a few threads that I can recall: David/Charles Koch, Alberto Fujimori, Harry Reid, and Walter Mondale. 

Your Harry Reid thread was merged into a pre-existing one.

[Zsa Zsa's leg 884]

23 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

Your Harry Reid thread was merged into a pre-existing one.

Still made one.

[Sir Creep 7,070]

On 24/06/2018 at 16:15, Zsa Zsa's leg said:

I've only made a few threads that I can recall: David/Charles Koch, Alberto Fujimori, Harry Reid, and Walter Mondale. 

Those are all valid threads.  Big recognizable names on both sides of The Pond (and yes that Fn matters), and an illness.  If those are the threads you've created I hope you create more in the future.  You 'get it', others don't.
SC

[Toast 16,155]

I've only started three threads in 10 years.

Death Songs

A Night To Remember

Words We Dislike

 

None are about individuals. 

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,220]

3 hours ago, Toast said:

I've only started three threads in 10 years.

Death Songs

A Night To Remember

Words We Dislike

 

None are about individuals. 

No rush Toastie, no rush....

[Bibliogryphon 9,592]

In my mind I thought Individual threads should be limited to people who have been on the list. I started a Radio 4 thread and a Babylon 5 thread and the one about Gerry and Sylvia Anderson was created in my name.

[Deathray 2,941]

19 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

In my mind I thought Individual threads should be limited to people who have been on the list. I started a Radio 4 thread and a Babylon 5 thread and the one about Gerry and Sylvia Anderson was created in my name.

 

That would be ridiculous unincusive, there's thousands of high profile celebs who could keel over any minute, a fraction of whom have been on the list. 

 

A limit as to people who would have been on the list would be a better rule but even then there's some folk who deserve their own thread but would never have been picked for the list.

[Bibliogryphon 9,592]

12 minutes ago, Deathray said:

 

That would be ridiculous unincusive, there's thousands of high profile celebs who could keel over any minute, a fraction of whom have been on the list. 

 

A limit as to people who would have been on the list would be a better rule but even then there's some folk who deserve their own thread but would never have been picked for the list.

Just because they do not have a thread does not mean they cannot be discussed.

[Spade_Cooley 9,544]

Part of me wants to start a thread for "Anyone who comes into contact with Ariana Grande". I mean, Pete Davidson is gotta be straight back on the junk now, right?