Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Thanks Dan. I think ill stay out of there, and keep my thoughts to myself. Besides, none of this will matter when all of our faces are melting late Friday, Early Saturday morning on that special farm in Tennessee.
I think what we all need to do is take a deep breath, and let out a loud 'BONNAROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!'
Post by viciouscircle on Apr 12, 2009 22:31:14 GMT -5
What part of "I agreed to a set of guidelines when I signed up for inforoo and if I don't abide by those rules I lose my privilege to post on Inforoo" are some of you not understanding? It isn't complicated, it isn't open to interpretation, and it isn't a sign of prudishness, being close-minded or any of the other specious accusations some of you are making. We ALL agreed to certain terms of use, and no one of us is above that. One person believed he was and it was that, not some imaginary conspiracy by anyone to get him tossed, which caused his ban. I can understand that some might be upset that their friend is no longer here, but he chose that path himself. Get over yourselves, stop looking to follow in his footsteps and move on.
If any thread ever needed the waahmbulance pic, it's this one.
If you somehow manage to offend these mods to the point of getting banned then you probably deserve it, sounds like the guy was warned and ultimately ended up kicking himself out.
Post by HoodooOperator on Apr 12, 2009 23:09:13 GMT -5
Ugh, no wonder I have gradually gotten away from interaction on this board, there are a lot of amazing people on here, but this board is filled with more fu*kng drama than a high school.
Wow toofast, so you are advocating this in memory of someone who was banned from a discussion board. You are a pathetic human coward..
coward- –noun 1. a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.
–adjective 2. lacking courage; very fearful or timid. 3. proceeding from or expressive of fear or timidity: a coward cry.
Well I guess you are wrong again clacto, which i am sure happens to you all the time! Cause none of that describes me. I am pretty sure that is a better definition for you actually!
and as far as pathetic, I think you just made me cry...Ohhh no some fat Internet fool thinks I am pathetic....what to do?
You are just a little bitch, deal with it, grow a pair and maybe you can be a man someday!!!!
^^^That must've made you feel like quite the badass. You sure sounded like one while I was reading it.
yeah, I'm an internet message board badass.. what can I say, I was born with that spectacular talent..thanx for noticing! and it appears that you are TRYING to do the same... be a badass that is!
Last Edit: Apr 13, 2009 1:47:17 GMT -5 by toofast80 - Back to Top
Im not going to join either side on whether he should be banned or not but Creep will be missed. Have had quite a few laughs from his posts and he always seemed like a cool guy.
Yeah, Creep wasn't a bad guy. I enjoyed what he had to share. I liked how he was one of the go-to guys when someone had to PM a particularly raunchy confession. I'm going to miss that. I'd also like to say that each and every PM I've received regarding this situation has been in support of Creep.
In the spirit of sticking up for him, I'm going to repeat myself and say that I think he was treated unfairly. I heard about three warnings against him. I'm totally with the mods on one of those warnings, up in the air about a second, and totally on Creep's side for a third.
I'd like to rant a bit more about the offense in which I think Creep was treated unfairly: posting a link to Tubgirl with an NSFW warning.
Chico posted a picture of his very own dyed-pink pubes in a thread some months ago. He included an NSFW warning, and I have since checked with Chico on Facebook - moderators said nothing about it. In fact, people were clamoring to see it. I don't have a precise definition of the inappropriate line that was allegedly crossed, but I am pretty sure that pubic hair & Tubgirl fall on the same side of it.
Now, here's how I feel about complaints/action against posting an NSFW link:
When I go into my local grocery store, there's a magazine rack. I can grab Ladies' Home Journal, Rolling Stone, Mad Magazine and the like... but I can also pick up Hustler from the same magazine rack. Some magazines come in clear plastic wrap to prevent browsing; other plastic-wrapped magazines come with obscuring colors to keep potentially offensive material from reaching the eye of the general public. I feel that the obscuring wrap over Hustler magazine is essentially the same thing as saying "NSFW" when posting a link online. Now, when you see the word "Hustler" peeking out from above the colored wrapping, you know something's going on in there which might not be agreeable to all members of the public. But that fact alone doesn't mean we have to prohibit Larry Flynt from publishing it. If you knowingly and willingly pick up an obscuringly wrapped magazine... only to purchase it, take it home, open it and THEN not like its contents - that's your own damn fault. Nobody makes anyone else acquire and browse that magazine. It is there for those who want to see it, and nobody except those who want to see it are the ones who see it.
I feel an NSFW warning in a forum works the same way. It's there, but only for those willing to see it.
Creep gave fair warning that he was posting NSFW material; it's not like anyone had Tubgirl forced on them simply for viewing the thread in which he posted the link.
I think it's ridiculous to count an NSFW post against Creep, because he gave fair warning. Further complicating the issue is that (as Chico's example shows us) the mod squad selectively enforced this with one user and not another. They were fine with it when it was Chico's short & curlies, but when Creep did a similar thing it was suddenly a problem for which he was warned and eventually banished. This does not seem fair to me.
The mods gave Creep three strikes before they banished him; I think this particular strike against Creep was unfairly applied to him. If the mods gave him three strikes before banning him, and one of those warnings probably shouldn't be a strike against Creep... it should follow that Creep has been unfairly struck out. That's how I feel about his situation.
Not to mention the fact that Creep, having been warned, actually DELETED the post in question. He was told by the mod squad to clean up his act, and the deletion of this post only goes to show that. So, the mod squad told Creep to be on good behavior. When he actually did take actions towards being in line with his warning, they went and banned him anyway. He did take steps to rectify the situation, and it didn't count for anything as far as the mod squad was concerned. What kind of message does this send?
I don't believe that appreciating Creep and making a case for him in absentia are necessarily exclusive of one another. True, I'm speaking up because I like the guy, but it goes beyond that.
I'm for moderators using their powers - responsibly and fairly. This applies not just to Creep, but to everyone. It doesn't matter which two people were involved: the fact remains that the mods were fine with it in with one user in one situation, and then singled out a different user in the same situation. One of them was never reprimanded, the other had it count against them when it came to their ultimate banning. This it not equal application of the rules to everyone as far as I'm concerned. If our mod squad isn't applying rules equally in two comparable situations, how can we be certain they will apply the rules fairly/equally down the road?
If this were an employment or housing decision, Creep would probably be within his rights to lawyer up against the mod squad and demand satisfaction. Now, I can't do exactly that, but I can make a similar plea on Creep's behalf...
Dear Inforoo Mod Squad,
I'm not entirely having a knee-jerk reaction regarding your actions towards Neighborhood Creep, but I am not exactly marching in lockstep with you either. Some of your warnings/actions against Creep were justified; my chief concern is the one that I find to be unjustified.
I feel that one of the three warnings you've counted against Creep was applied unfairly. It goes against a precedent you yourselves previously established. You've applied the same rules differently to different users in essentially the same situation - I find this unacceptable, and I hope others will too. What are you going to do, reprimand Chico for a months-ago post now that it's been pointed out he engaged in the same behavior without reprimand? I'd say that the statute of limitations on that expired some time ago. Besides, if you only act on this after all this time and only because of the Creep controversy, retroactively reprimanding Chico is only going to bolster the argument that Creep was selectively targeted. That being said, I think it's only fair that you not count against Creep that which you did not count against another user in a similar situation.
I hereby request that you: 1. Recognize that Creep has made efforts to be in line with your previous warnings, as a sign of good faith for his future behavior. 2. Officially un-reprimand Creep for posting an NSFW link with fair warning; it only accords with a precedent you yourselves have established. 3. Amend Creep's strikes-against count in accordance with removal of this unfairly-applied strike against him. 4. Un-ban Creep's IP, with the understanding that he's got one strike left before he's out.
I hope you share my belief in fair play and understand why the contrasting treatment of Chico vs. Creep does not constitute fair play. For the sake of fair play, give Creep another chance. Thanks for hearing me out on this.
Post by strumntheguitar on Apr 13, 2009 9:21:24 GMT -5
^^I stopped reading that halfway through when you compared a forum-wide joke (chico's pubes) to one of the raunchiest sites on the internet consisting of a whale-like person with a fountain of crap flowing out of her.
C'mon Kdogg, you have more logic than that.
edit: ok, I went and finished reading halfway through my post... and my opinion on the matter remains the same
And you know why I think Creep should remain banned? Because ever since he was gone this place has been the most annoying site on the entire internet. This has nothing to do with the lack of Creep's presence, but the rather simple lack of respect a small portion of his 'fanclub' (for lack of better term) has for this board and it's other members. It's absolutely ridiculous, and honestly, I doubt you can even try to deny that!