The verification is the tough part. All I have to do is wait until someone posts “I’m going on vacation”, and then send an e-mail to a moderator saying that I’m Poster X’s brother and Poster X is dead. There is no way to verify these things.
That would make it even worse. The poster who was declared “dead” as a prank would find it even harder to prove that it’s not true.
I don’t think Duckster is recommending this is done lightly, but we seem to have an exceptional exception here.
This board tends to avoid hard set rules anyway. I don’t think we expect this to happen for many. Most of us trust the judgments of the mods and admins to make decisions in case like this.
Perhaps. But the ones that don’t that will start the Pit threads and the accusations of favoritism if a request to change a member status to “Joined the Choir Invisible” is denied.
Hmmm.
We could also try “on the other SDMB, along with the original Cecil…”
It would give pause to any member thinking of declaring themselves dead as a joke. I’ve seen such hoaxes happen on other boards, and it’s not pretty.
Since I’ve never been banned on any board using this software (or any other for that matter 
I can’t know for sure what happens from the account owner’s perspective, but I was assuming that “BANNED” keeps the account from posting, but it wouldn’t keep the owner from logging in and contacting an admin? If “BANNED” really is a complete lockout, then the “deceased” status should be different, and allow at least that. If it turns out a member gets declared dead by someone else as a prank, they should be easily able to log in, and contact an admin, and thus prove they’re not dead. The admin undoes the “deceased” (or whatever) status, restoring them to “member” and then all their old posts revert to that too, thus sparing us the problem of the member posting from the “deceased” status.
*** Ponder
What I do is put the screen name on “Posting Sabbatical” with the User Title remaining “Member.” That leaves the registration intact but without posting privileges.
That seems the most appropriate thing to do in most all of these circumstances – they were a Member, they are a Member, they are with us always. It seems particularly significant in this instance.
My OP was done in the spirit of remembering Dopers who post no more. Yes, there is always the danger that we may very well have an undead Doper and the embarrassment that would occur. It’s a risk. So is awarding a Medal of Honor to someone not entitled. That’s why the military does extensive research, interviews, and more research and more interviews before the brass are convinced and a Medal of Honor be bestowed. (I only bring up the comparison because of the recent Medal of Honor ceremony for a fallen hero who gave his life in Iraq two years ago.)
We can take similar steps here with remembering those Dopers who are gone forever. Often the evidence presents itself in several ways. We knew about Dave because he told us. It was confirmed by his family before and after the fact. Dave’s history here lent to his credibility making it easier. And yes, he may be the true exception more than worthy of the honor.
Johnny L.A.'s thread is a case in point concerning Dopers now gone. I don’t think it would take much real effort to confirm some deaths, and yes, some that we may not.
This comment is truly disappointing for opinions already expressed.
(Bolding mine.)
If we really are a Doper community as we proclaim time and time again, and this place is about fighting ignorance, we need to start with our own before taking on non-Dopers.
I just came across this thread today, so pardon a rather late revival for comments about titles. I was very honored to have my own special titled bestowed. It’s raised my profile here, and I am probably paid more attention than I actually deserve. And I’ve received several PMs from members who came across my name somewhere else in the media, and wanted to be sure I saw it.
It’s also been a big hassle. What Exit?, it’s been a LOT more than a dozen times the question has disrupted threads that I participated in. And it’s not only that. Questions in ATMB, PMs, I don’t know how many threads and posts suggesting a bunch more titles, or personalized titles.
I will be happy to return to just plain Member, even if I win the Bulwer contest again. (Isn’t likely, no one’s won it twice in 25 years. Of course, winning it again would be REALLY extraordinary :D)
I don’t know that a few more titles would do any harm, but I can’t really see a basis for having them or deciding who gets what. And if everyone can pick their own… so how is that any different than a username? Why would one refer to a Member by a title rather than by name?
As to this particular issue regarding David Simmons, I’m ambivalent. I noticed he was “missing”, and we had a private exchange of email, where I encouraged him to post his circumstances so everyone would know. I think he was truly an extraordinary guy.
But his posts will only appear in searches from now on, and AFAIK you can’t search for a title – which would be the only reason to give a special title to a deceased member. And, if you want to know what David said about something, you can search for his user name.
So, a special “deceased” title for ALL dead members? Ok, if you could search for it, and how often would you want to find out what all our dead members had to say about something?
Some of us want it because we need a final “gesture,” you know. We didn’t have a ceremony to go to or a ritual to perform. I think we’re trying to find one. Another meaningful and traditional title is Absent Friend
I also like Tuba’s idea.
It may be a moot point by now but I will throw my two cents in anyway for what it’s worth.
Although I like the “Special” title Boyo Jim has (it did lead me to the contest and if I ever need to write a crappy novel and don’t have an opening paragraph he would certainly be the one I would call upon) I don’t think extrainous titles would be a benifit.
That said I can see occation for exception.
We have Charter Members and Members; Administrators, Moderators, SDSAB members and of course The Perfect Master. As much as I stand against labeling and forms of social elitism, it is also obvious that certain members do have qualities above the rest. For example, in a theological discussion I have great respect for polycarp and highly value his input. For mechanical issues the same level of respect is held for Rick. For this I would suggest a very limited number of catagory specifications for the member status.
These would be limited to just a handfull of specialized areas, decided by SDMB committee and approved by Administration, that would be doled out as an honorary status. In keeping it as simple as something like this can possibly be, perhaps the honor could be petitioned for by the member and approved by their peers based on predetermined criteria in their posts. Also, it could, and probably should, be limited to once per year.
In very rare cases a Member status may be petitioned for as Emeritus or some other status of ultimate honor. It is this status that in my opinion should be bestowed upon those among us who have passed as a symbol of respect. Their posting privledges could be suspended, as Tubadiva mentioned earlier but their historical impact will live on forever in the archives (until wiped).
Anything more complicated than this simple of an honorary system would not only strip the user of flexability and anonymity, but create a time dump that could burn up a lot more resources than it is worth.
Only an opinion and possibly too late but there it is.
Why not have deceased members’ status changed to BANNED. 
See posts 9, 21, 25 and 26 in this thread.
When deciding what titles should be allowed and disallowed, I think it’s important to consider what actual utility it offers readers. Both when reading a new post, and when browsing the archives. The behavior of the board software, causing the title on all the old posts to conform to the current title, also must be taken into account.
I think it would be helpful to have “former member” and “former charter member” as titles for members who let their memberships lapse. Seeing “guest” on an old post doesn’t tell me enough. Did they pony up and stick around, or did they use up their free month and vanish?
Having a “deceased” status is helpful to knowing whether I can successfully PM that person. Leaving them on permanent “member” status will eventually confuse someone, and waste their time. I think that situation is bound to come up sooner or later. No one is going to think, “Oh, let’s run a search for an obit to check to see if this person is DEAD before I PM them.” It’s only after you fail to get a response do you start thinking those things.
*** Ponder
Since, as has been noted above, the only time anyone is going to see a deceased person’s name is if they are browsing through a very old thread, I think the “eventual confusion” will be minimal.
If you wanted to do something, put them in a user group whose title is completely blank. Quite honestly, all these attempts at noble/dignified titles just seem out of place and dopey on an internet message board.
::: blush:::
Wow, thanks. If this idea ever goes forward, can I have Imperfect Master as my title?
Seriously, it would be a very nice way to honor members who have died.
If I may inject some rationality here, I think “Deceased Member” is clear enough to avoid lots of confused questions–unlike the ridiculous “Best of the Worst” title, which seemed completely out of nowhere to me, & I’ve posted on a thread where Jim mentioned he’d won the Bulwer-Lytton.
Alternatively, “Past Member” or “Former Member” might be a good way to hedge bets.
Well, in Persephones case, there were several articles in her local paper, the obit was on line, several of us went to her funeral. So, in some cases it is possible to verify these things.
They really won’t mind if we don’t.
Says the one guy with an idiosyncratic label. :dubious:
Any Mod,
Lest the intent be diluted with proverbial SDMB humor, I request this thread now rest in peace.