RickJay playing Mod in response.
OK, so I get it that smithsb has it in for religious folks, particularly the reputed charlatans. What I don’t get is why he draws an unofficial weenie whacking, when some like my wife** (BoxerMom)** can enter a list of equally repulsive secular political personalities, and not draw any attention.
It’s a damned game, and part of the fun is the option of making fun of your selections.
Yeah, I was taken aback by that also. There is a long history in the Death Pool of making lists of politicians you don’t particularly like or religious people you don’t particularly like or whatever.
Here’s a snippet from the post that drew the warning:
(emphasis mine)
If RickJay’s mod note was meant to indicate that calling Catholicism a cult has no place in the game room, and is just going to cause hurt feelings and argument, then I agree with him. Smithsb does seem to be engaging in some religious sniping with that comment. Perhaps RickJay just quoted the wrong portion of the offending post?
But if RickJay’s mod note was meant to indicate that having a religious-based list is inappropriate, then I agree with VunderBob. That’s absolutely par for the course in the Death Pool, and there are several such lists every year.
You’re correct in that I didn’t quote the part of the post I intended to. That was just bad cutting and pasting. Sorry about that.
Nevertheless, the direction - it was not a warning - stands. The Game Room is not a place to engage in baiting people, which the Pope bit obviously was. I realize that the next comment will probably be “well, why’s it okay to call this obscure guy a cult leader and not the Pope” and the answer is that I don’t care about the Pope, but am heading off at the pass attempts to snipe at Catholics and whatnot. An attack on some obscure cult leader is unlikely to start a flame war, but an attack on the leader of the world’s biggest religion might. That was simply a bit too aggressive.
Nonetheless I screwed up the message by screwing up the quote, so I apologize for messing it up.
The posts I saw have a list of nominees.
The list that is the subject here has some strong/ controversial/ call it what you will comments that could cause an argument.
I can’t feel any RO due to a Mod intervention (not a warning) in this case.
smithsb’s 2011 list, for comparison - it’s practically a cut and paste with a few modifications to accommodate the dead (presumably)
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13208243&postcount=55
Is there something preventing you from fixing the quote or adding a clarifying comment? I’d hate for Death Pool players to think that there’s a general board rule against controversial theme lists.
In any case, thanks for your intervention, and thanks again for acknowledging the error.
Bad call, and unwarranted mod intervention. To a certain extent, Rickjay is saying the Pope is immune to snark, while other leaders are not. My own list in the game includes:
Fred Phelps—asshole.
If I can call Fred Phelps an asshole, then someone else should be able to call the Pope a cult leader if they wish. Essentially, this boils down to moderating according to personal bias, and is wrong.
Are you seriously contending that Phelps’s classification as an asshole is somehow of comparable contentiousness as calling the Catholic Church a cult?
Take it this way: religious jabs don’t belong in the Game Room any more than they apply in GQ.
The principle is the same, and GQ is the most strictly moderated forum here. The Game Room does not and should not use anything like that level of restrictions on commentary.
I agree. It’s way too subjective; do we need to run every possible candidate past the mods?
Either ban them all, or let them all through. It shouldn’t matter that something has the potential to produce a “flame war”–address that when and if it does happen.
This “pre-crime” nonsense needs to stop.
Genuine question, because I never go to the forum: is the idea generally just to predict deaths or is there a history in the forum of attacking the death-nominees at the same time, in other words making a wish list of deaths rather then genuine predictions based on age, life-style, etc? Or is it a combination of both?
I understand it sort of works that you earn points if they die and their age is deducted from 100 to determine the points.
You don’t have to state why you selected them.
We had something similar at work ages ago called “Run for the Lillies”.
Seriously? Moderating the Death Pool for offensiveness?
Well, technically it is wishing death on people 
As the Death Mistress of the Death Pool this year I found a couple of the comments of this list in question distasteful.
But considering the kind of game it is I was still surprised to find an unofficial “slap on the wrist”, or whatever you want to call it, being issued, when the list is almost the same as past years. If I was a mod I would not have “unofficailly” warned smithsb, especially as smithsb does not pursue it with further postings related to the theme.
I haven’t submitted my list yet, but one of the religious figures from smithsb’s list, Fred Phelps, will be on it, as he has been for several years. I always list him as “hatemonger”. Is that too provocative?
Now that all this has been said, as Death Mistress, I’m asking, can’t we all just get along?
I always thought those death pool things were about picking the names of people that you thought might actually die in the year ahead.
Instead, it seems they are just about splurging a big list of people that you seemingly want to die in the year ahead.
Even apart from the whole wishing death on people thing, how utterly pointless it seems.
Some people may actually want their listee’s to die, but most don’t. It’s like your first paragraph, they’re guessing someone might die in the year ahead.
Have no idea how you’d go about “modding” something as morbid as that “game.” – oh well, whatever sinks your (their?) boat I guess.
Sorry, but I don’t believe that anybody posting the types of lists linked to above, actually believe that all those people are actually in any danger of passing away.