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!!
Why do you keep bringing up a thread in which you had a complete and total nuclear meltdown, which included reminding Zapp Brannigan that you've met his dad and asking how dare he take someone else's side?
Do you suffer from mental illness?
(For the peanut gallery, this is the thread EAP is upset about: inforoo.com/thread/30362/insider-missing . The only Capp Dogg post in said thread is in response to somebody else mentioning the Capp Dogg.)
That thread is locked but there is this little nugget that I copied over:
Feb 18, 2013 at 10:18am Larry Farnsworth said: I'm sure the moderators here wouldn't allow a member to have two accounts. People have gotten banned for that.
1) That thread is gold. 2) I love how the same arguments now were already brought up in that thread including fawnmart's reasoning that QSAROO could be viewed very easily as a second account and that an absolute ban (which is what would happen if room is not made for exceptions) would be the end of that account (which would be bullshit). 3) I miss Flanz.
I see what you are glomming onto here - and I regret bringing it up because, for me, it is not relevant to the argument any more than the entertainment value, really.
See, I happen to enjoy The Capp Dogg posts. I also think Juggs (Rory whatever) is actually funny as well. In a dickish, elitest way he is entertaining. When I fire at him it is as much banter and prodding at a grumpy badger for my own laughs (no offense Juggs). I know he means no I'll will towards people he "insults" because most of the jabs he throws are as far from reality as his artificial persona of Ashley Capps. So they're entertaining. So is the lack of sense of humor of the people that get upset for real about it. It's (unfortunately) amusing looking at it from the outside.
However absolutely NONE of this is relevant to the end result of this discussion.
This is not a democracy. It's great to be able to have our voices heard, and I appreciate the mods payin attention here. The bottom line is that there are TERMS AND CONDITIONS every member agrees to when posting on this site. It's the "law" of inforoo, if you will. I actually like the argument that since people clearly know who it is and everything about the account, it's not as "bad" as creating multiple accounts for more malicious purposes. Unfortunately, RULES ARE RULES and having multiple accounts is clearly against the rules.
Rules are not a case by case basis. They are for everyone. I support the rule, even though I actually wish Capp Doff could post.
If rules are rules are rules, then why does a prosecutor have pretty much unbridled discretion to decide whether to prosecute a crime? And why is it perfectly legal for a jury to sit around a deliberation room and decide that, even though the evidence 100% proved that the defendant broke a law, they are not going to convict the defendant. And why can the Governor and the President pardon any convicted person they want? Rules are pretty much always on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, if the law was clearly broken, then the prosecutor prosecutes and the jury convicts, but not every time. So please don't try to tell me that we can have exceptions all over the place to our state and federal laws, but we can't ever possibly have an exception to the "no duplicate accounts" rule on Inforoo.
ITM has pretty much confirmed that this thread is going nowhere anyway, so we can go around and around some more if you'd like, but it doesn't seem like it's for any purpose other than the sake of arguing.
Its a decent discussion I think, not completely pointless.
I see what you are getting at and while I can not dispute what you say, I am not a legal expert - so I have no idea if what you are saying is true or not about someone being clearly guilty and juries not convicting or punishing a criminal. But I will accept it as truth, you seem pretty sure of this.
So now we have to go down the path of "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law", right?
If we go to spirit of the law, well, I would clearly have to change my vote. On the other hand, what if I wanted to start up a parody account? Or you? How would that work? My guess is it wouldn't. It would get shut down immediately. And possibly face banning of the main account for some period of time.
My point is this: fairness breeds contentment, unfairness breeds contempt. Its going to make certain people (weather they want to or not, like it or not, or want to admit it or not) that certain people get special treatment. We are not all equal. If we have more fans, we can do more and say more and get away with more, and break the rules. But I can't because Im Chodey McChoderson.
THATS what I disagree with. That is why I am so steadfast in my assertion.
That thread is locked but there is this little nugget that I copied over:
1) That thread is gold. 2) I love how the same arguments now were already brought up in that thread including fawnmart's reasoning that QSAROO could be viewed very easily as a second account and that an absolute ban (which is what would happen if room is not made for exceptions) would be the end of that account (which would be bullshit). 3) I miss Flanz.
Qsaroo is run by more than one person. They don't actively post in any threads except ones where they are helping others.
Your (incorrect) opinion doesn't make the posts not funny. Because they are.
I never said they were not funny. I said, more than once, I do not find them funny.
Then why, pray tell, did you quote a post that said "The posts are indisputably funny" (AKA Objectively) to repeat your opinion, which has already been noted and ignored?
I never said they were not funny. I said, more than once, I do not find them funny.
Then why, pray tell, did you quote a post that said "The posts are indisputably funny" (AKA Objectively) to repeat your opinion, which has already been noted and ignored?
Then why, pray tell, did you quote a post that said "The posts are indisputably funny" (AKA Objectively) to repeat your opinion, which has already been noted and ignored?
I do what I want.
Hey man, if proudly telling the world that you're a humorless robot is what gets you off, more power to ya!
1) That thread is gold. 2) I love how the same arguments now were already brought up in that thread including fawnmart's reasoning that QSAROO could be viewed very easily as a second account and that an absolute ban (which is what would happen if room is not made for exceptions) would be the end of that account (which would be bullshit). 3) I miss Flanz.
Qsaroo is run by more than one person. They don't actively post in any threads except ones where they are helping others.
Talk about apples and oranges...
It's still a second account because everyone involved with it has another account. The rule is no second accounts, and apparently, rules are rules. There is no exception within the rule that you can have a second account as long as you are being helpful with it. In addition, this has been brought up before, but would it matter if two or more people ran the Capp Dogg account?
It's not apples and oranges at all. It's an example of how people are so black and white about a rule when it pertains to someone they actively dislike (many with valid reasons for doing so) but are ready to make exceptions when it pertains to a group of people that are widely liked and respected.
But yeah, you're probably right, except if you lock this thread now, it will become more powerful than you could ever imagine. Plus this will all spill out into other threads.
Everyone is assuming that "no second accounts" is the only thing being considered here. I can assure you it is not.
I actually sent Ashley Capps a personal message on FB and asked him his feelings about the Capp Dogg persona. I wanted the opinion of the person in question.
Obviously he has forgotten about that one fabulous night he and I had in the Bahamas and has not replied.
Qsaroo is run by more than one person. They don't actively post in any threads except ones where they are helping others.
Talk about apples and oranges...
It's still a second account because everyone involved with it has another account. The rule is no second accounts, and apparently, rules are rules. There is no exception within the rule that you can have a second account as long as you are being helpful with it. In addition, this has been brought up before, but would it matter if two or more people ran the Capp Dogg account?
It's not apples and oranges at all. It's an example of how people are so black and white about a rule when it pertains to someone they actively dislike (many with valid reasons for doing so) but are ready to make exceptions when it pertains to a group of people that are widely liked and respected.
It's still a second account because everyone involved with it has another account. The rule is no second accounts, and apparently, rules are rules. There is no exception within the rule that you can have a second account as long as you are being helpful with it. In addition, this has been brought up before, but would it matter if two or more people ran the Capp Dogg account?
It's not apples and oranges at all. It's an example of how people are so black and white about a rule when it pertains to someone they actively dislike (many with valid reasons for doing so) but are ready to make exceptions when it pertains to a group of people that are widely liked and respected.
I disagree.
QSAROO is a separate entity.
Juggs is just a member.
So you would be fine if Capp Dogg was group written rather than a singular person?
Hey man, if proudly telling the world that you're a humorless robot is what gets you off, more power to ya!
Ugh, misquoted. I did not, in fact, ever say I was humorless robot. I said...I did not find the Cappp Doggz posts funny. GAWD, get it right! This issue is much too important to be misquoting and putting words in peoples mouths.
So you would be fine if Capp Dogg was group written rather than a singular person?
Not the point.
QSAROO would likely continue if inforoo ceased to exist. It was born from inforoo and would continue on after. It is an organization, an entity of it's own. Like a corporation in the real world is considered another entity for legal purposes, so it does here. QSAROO is it's own thing, and a few people act as the voice of it - but it is not them doing what QSAROO does, it's simply them carrying out communication.
On the other hand, of inforoo ceased to exist, Juggs would also. It's an internet persona derived from the ego of a person on the other end of a keyboard. It's not real. He is a real person in real life, but his internet persona as it relates to inforoo will die with inforoo. QSAROO won't.
Hey man, if proudly telling the world that you're a humorless robot is what gets you off, more power to ya!
Ugh, misquoted. I did not, in fact, ever say I was humorless robot. I said...I did not find the Cappp Doggz posts funny. GAWD, get it right! This issue is much too important to be misquoting and putting words in peoples mouths.
#idowhatiwant
You just said you didn't say a thing and then you said you said the exact same thing with different words.
So you would be fine if Capp Dogg was group written rather than a singular person?
Not the point.
QSAROO would likely continue if inforoo ceased to exist. It was born from inforoo and would continue on after. It is an organization, an entity of it's own. Like a corporation in the real world is considered another entity for legal purposes, so it does here. QSAROO is it's own thing, and a few people act as the voice of it - but it is not them doing what QSAROO does, it's simply them carrying out communication.
On the other hand, of inforoo ceased to exist, Juggs would also. It's an internet persona derived from the ego of a person on the other end of a keyboard. It's not real. He is a real person in real life, but his internet persona as it relates to inforoo will die with inforoo. QSAROO won't.
It's totally apples and oranges.
A theoretical scenario where Inforoo ceases to exist is your justification for being against funny posts. Take a step back and think about how you got here.
QSAROO would likely continue if inforoo ceased to exist. It was born from inforoo and would continue on after. It is an organization, an entity of it's own. Like a corporation in the real world is considered another entity for legal purposes, so it does here. QSAROO is it's own thing, and a few people act as the voice of it - but it is not them doing what QSAROO does, it's simply them carrying out communication.
On the other hand, of inforoo ceased to exist, Juggs would also. It's an internet persona derived from the ego of a person on the other end of a keyboard. It's not real. He is a real person in real life, but his internet persona as it relates to inforoo will die with inforoo. QSAROO won't.
It's totally apples and oranges.
A theoretical scenario where Inforoo ceases to exist is your justification for being against funny posts. Take a step back and think about how you got here.
It's more a matter of "There's no exceptions to rules until there are exceptions to rules."
QSAROO would likely continue if inforoo ceased to exist. It was born from inforoo and would continue on after. It is an organization, an entity of it's own. Like a corporation in the real world is considered another entity for legal purposes, so it does here. QSAROO is it's own thing, and a few people act as the voice of it - but it is not them doing what QSAROO does, it's simply them carrying out communication.
On the other hand, of inforoo ceased to exist, Juggs would also. It's an internet persona derived from the ego of a person on the other end of a keyboard. It's not real. He is a real person in real life, but his internet persona as it relates to inforoo will die with inforoo. QSAROO won't.
It's totally apples and oranges.
A theoretical scenario where Inforoo ceases to exist is your justification for being against funny posts. Take a step back and think about how you got here.
Yeah, let's miss the point intentionally. That'll be for productive conversation.
A theoretical scenario where Inforoo ceases to exist is your justification for being against funny posts. Take a step back and think about how you got here.
Yeah, let's miss the point intentionally. That'll be for productive conversation.
If you're aware that missing the point intentionally is a bad idea, then why do you keep doing it?
Ugh, misquoted. I did not, in fact, ever say I was humorless robot. I said...I did not find the Cappp Doggz posts funny. GAWD, get it right! This issue is much too important to be misquoting and putting words in peoples mouths.
#idowhatiwant
You just said you didn't say a thing and then you said you said the exact same thing with different words.
Pretty clear I never said "I am a humorless robot" and I have said "I do not find his posts funny"
"I am a humorless robot" would imply I do not find anything funny because robots are incapable of experiencing humor. I do in fact find a lot of things funny. For example, this thread, and this very important discussion we are having over semantics.
I just still fail to see the problem with this one account. Do we really believe everyone is going to start creating duplicate accts if we let The Big Capp Dogg come back? It was approved before it began (right?), the posts were sporadic (22 in the seven month period), and we all knew who was behind it. I swear, IMO, why does it matter so much who is behind it? If I were behind it, would it be so big of a deal? It was/is funny & it makes the majority of posters laugh. Yes, not all, but I stand by what I say when I say the majority.
FTR, if people are going to start creating duplicate accts, you had better go vote for pancakes.
Last Edit: Oct 28, 2014 10:25:55 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
