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!!
What part of the Bonnaroo spirit includes voting to allow a smug, condescending pilgarlic rule-breaking privileges that lead to insulting the creator of our favorite time and place of the year, regardless of it's entertainment value?
It's ok, you can get back to me when you find it.
It's really only insulting if you believe there is a significant amount of truth to the Capp Dogg persona. And if that's the case, do you truly believe that Ashley Capps is some untouchable being to be revered and adored no matter what? Personally, I believe that he got into the business he's in because he loves music . . . and money and power. He wouldn't have gotten to where he is if he didn't. But I also recognize that the Capp Dogg persona is so ridiculously beyond what the man is (probably) actually like, that there's little to no truth left in it. So I don't really see it as insulting, and if I did think there was enough truth in it to make it insulting, then I would think that he at least somewhat deserved to be insulted.
Maybe you should read the multiple posts where I say how much I enjoy the posts by Capp Dogg.
It's really only insulting if you believe there is a significant amount of truth to the Capp Dogg persona. And if that's the case, do you truly believe that Ashley Capps is some untouchable being to be revered and adored no matter what? Personally, I believe that he got into the business he's in because he loves music . . . and money and power. He wouldn't have gotten to where he is if he didn't. But I also recognize that the Capp Dogg persona is so ridiculously beyond what the man is (probably) actually like, that there's little to no truth left in it. So I don't really see it as insulting, and if I did think there was enough truth in it to make it insulting, then I would think that he at least somewhat deserved to be insulted.
Maybe you should read the multiple posts where I say how much I enjoy the posts by Capp Dogg.
Maybe you should read your own post that I quoted because, regardless of how much you have to change your point in order to avoid legitimate arguments against the things you have said, I was directly responding to your suggestion that the account is "insulting the creator of [your] favorite time and place of the year."
What part of the Bonnaroo spirit includes voting to allow a smug, condescending pilgarlic rule-breaking privileges that lead to insulting the creator of our favorite time and place of the year, regardless of it's entertainment value?
It's ok, you can get back to me when you find it.
Did I miss something there? Were you suggesting that the Capp Dogg persona was insulting someone else?
Maybe you should read the multiple posts where I say how much I enjoy the posts by Capp Dogg.
Maybe you should read your own post that I quoted because, regardless of how much you have to change your point in order to avoid legitimate arguments against the things you have said, I was directly responding to your suggestion that the account is "insulting the creator of [your] favorite time and place of the year."
What part of the Bonnaroo spirit includes voting to allow a smug, condescending pilgarlic rule-breaking privileges that lead to insulting the creator of our favorite time and place of the year, regardless of it's entertainment value?
It's ok, you can get back to me when you find it.
Did I miss something there? Were you suggesting that the Capp Dogg persona was insulting someone else?
Just because it's quite obviously in jest doesn't change the fact that the basis of humor presented is clearly founded with insulting light.
Our points are not contrary.
I also intentionally left out the fact that Capp Dogg clearly insults every person who attends.
I realize Capp Dogg apparently got a laugh out of it. Maybe it was earnest, maybe it was forcibly presenting a "good sport" attitude. It's my contention that it is irrelevant.
Maybe you should read your own post that I quoted because, regardless of how much you have to change your point in order to avoid legitimate arguments against the things you have said, I was directly responding to your suggestion that the account is "insulting the creator of [your] favorite time and place of the year."
Did I miss something there? Were you suggesting that the Capp Dogg persona was insulting someone else?
Just because it's quite obviously in jest doesn't change the fact that the basis of humor presented is clearly founded with insulting light.
Our points are not contrary.
I also intentionally left out the fact that Capp Dogg clearly insults every person who attends.
I realize Capp Dogg apparently got a laugh out of it. Maybe it was earnest, maybe it was forcibly presenting a "good sport" attitude. It's my contention that it is irrelevant.
I didn't suggest that it wasn't insulting because it was in jest. I suggested that it wasn't insulting because it was so far outside of reality that it loses any real meaning.
Our points apparently are contrary because you stated yours in support of your position that the account should not be allowed. My point is that the account is so unrealistic that it is not insulting. Thus, it being insulting should not be a basis for disallowing it. Alternatively, my point is that, if it were insulting, perhaps insults are not inappropriate because I don't think we shouldn't hold up a man who warrants such insults as being beyond them. So it being insulting would still not be grounds for disallowing it. (Again, I'm inclined to believe the former, but I think it works either way.)
It is your contention that what is irrelevant? AC getting a laugh out of it? How is that less relevant than any other consideration? Really, in this context, if we are having an ongoing conversation about whether to allow a person to have a parody account, why would you not consider the perspective of the person being parodied if you had that information?
Just because it's quite obviously in jest doesn't change the fact that the basis of humor presented is clearly founded with insulting light.
Our points are not contrary.
I also intentionally left out the fact that Capp Dogg clearly insults every person who attends.
I realize Capp Dogg apparently got a laugh out of it. Maybe it was earnest, maybe it was forcibly presenting a "good sport" attitude. It's my contention that it is irrelevant.
I didn't suggest that it wasn't insulting because it was in jest. I suggested that it wasn't insulting because it was so far outside of reality that it loses any real meaning.
Our points apparently are contrary because you stated yours in support of your position that the account should not be allowed. My point is that the account is so unrealistic that it is not insulting. Thus, it being insulting should not be a basis for disallowing it. Alternatively, my point is that, if it were insulting, perhaps insults are not inappropriate because I don't think we shouldn't hold up a man who warrants such insults as being beyond them. So it being insulting would still not be grounds for disallowing it. (Again, I'm inclined to believe the former, but I think it works either way.)
It is your contention that what is irrelevant? AC getting a laugh out of it? How is that less relevant than any other consideration? Really, in this context, if we are having an ongoing conversation about whether to allow a person to have a parody account, why would you not consider the perspective of the person being parodied if you had that information?
Juggs you say Capp dogg didn't make fun of anyone? What about the Pondo thread?
And also, nbf you know I love you but as someone who's been around a person with a "fake" account, I think you can agree it usually leads to trouble.
This is absolutely not a democracy, but it was my understanding that when the board got transferred over to the mods, part of that was because it was going from one detached person having final say to a group of involved people trying to run the board in a more fair, logical manner. That said, if the mods were coming in to this thread saying that they had discussed it and unequivocally decided not to allow it, I probably wouldn't be posting in this thread, but that has not been the case. The mods seem to be okay with allowing us to voice our various perspectives on the issue, so I don't see anything wrong with continuing to discuss it.
With regard to my second-hand involvement with a duplicate account, I hesitated because of that to get involved in this thread. But here's the thing. That situation was precisely why there was a a rule about duplicate accounts, and the type of situation in which the rule would be rightly enforced. This is entirely different, as this is completely out in the open. Everyone knows who it is and who it is not. Many people agree that it's funny, and most of the ones who don't think so really seem to dislike it mainly because of who is behind it. I just think it's apples and oranges.
Juggs you say Capp dogg didn't make fun of anyone? What about the Pondo thread?
And also, nbf you know I love you but as someone who's been around a person with a "fake" account, I think you can agree it usually leads to trouble.
This is absolutely not a democracy, but it was my understanding that when the board got transferred over to the mods, part of that was because it was going from one detached person having final say to a group of involved people trying to run the board in a more fair, logical manner. That said, if the mods were coming in to this thread saying that they had discussed it and unequivocally decided not to allow it, I probably wouldn't be posting in this thread, but that has not been the case. The mods seem to be okay with allowing us to voice our various perspectives on the issue, so I don't see anything wrong with continuing to discuss it.
With regard to my second-hand involvement with a duplicate account, I hesitated because of that to get involved in this thread. But here's the thing. That situation was precisely why there was a a rule about duplicate accounts, and the type of situation in which the rule would be rightly enforced. This is entirely different, as this is completely out in the open. Everyone knows who it is and who it is not. Many people agree that it's funny, and most of the ones who don't think so really seem to dislike it mainly because of who is behind it. I just think it's apples and oranges.
So if I started a poll to change inforoo's name to INFOPOO and I got enough votes then the mods should change it?
This is absolutely not a democracy, but it was my understanding that when the board got transferred over to the mods, part of that was because it was going from one detached person having final say to a group of involved people trying to run the board in a more fair, logical manner. That said, if the mods were coming in to this thread saying that they had discussed it and unequivocally decided not to allow it, I probably wouldn't be posting in this thread, but that has not been the case. The mods seem to be okay with allowing us to voice our various perspectives on the issue, so I don't see anything wrong with continuing to discuss it.
With regard to my second-hand involvement with a duplicate account, I hesitated because of that to get involved in this thread. But here's the thing. That situation was precisely why there was a a rule about duplicate accounts, and the type of situation in which the rule would be rightly enforced. This is entirely different, as this is completely out in the open. Everyone knows who it is and who it is not. Many people agree that it's funny, and most of the ones who don't think so really seem to dislike it mainly because of who is behind it. I just think it's apples and oranges.
So if I started a poll to change inforoo's name to INFOPOO and I got enough votes then the mods should change it?
This is absolutely not a democracy, but it was my understanding that when the board got transferred over to the mods, part of that was because it was going from one detached person having final say to a group of involved people trying to run the board in a more fair, logical manner. That said, if the mods were coming in to this thread saying that they had discussed it and unequivocally decided not to allow it, I probably wouldn't be posting in this thread, but that has not been the case. The mods seem to be okay with allowing us to voice our various perspectives on the issue, so I don't see anything wrong with continuing to discuss it.
With regard to my second-hand involvement with a duplicate account, I hesitated because of that to get involved in this thread. But here's the thing. That situation was precisely why there was a a rule about duplicate accounts, and the type of situation in which the rule would be rightly enforced. This is entirely different, as this is completely out in the open. Everyone knows who it is and who it is not. Many people agree that it's funny, and most of the ones who don't think so really seem to dislike it mainly because of who is behind it. I just think it's apples and oranges.
So if I started a poll to change inforoo's name to INFOPOO and I got enough votes then the mods should change it?
Hey it's funny and doesn't hurt anyone right?
Yes, and if we all voted to jump off a bridge, that should happen as well. It's not really a logical argument because it seems extraordinarily unlikely that that is ever going to happen. Regardless, making decisions like this is part of being a mod. I don't think that the votes in favor of allowing it should be definitive at all, but I do think they should be considered by the mods in making their decision.
And also, the only people who know it's juggs are those of us who have been around awhile.
There are people who still don't know juggs is Rory.
My point wasn't that every single person on the board knows the precise identity of who is behind the account. My point was that it's not being hidden, as in a case of one person pretending to be different people to create confusion and stir the pot. The mods all know who is who in this situation, as do most, if not all, of the members who care to know.
So if I started a poll to change inforoo's name to INFOPOO and I got enough votes then the mods should change it?
Hey it's funny and doesn't hurt anyone right?
Yes, and if we all voted to jump off a bridge, that should happen as well. It's not really a logical argument because it seems extraordinarily unlikely that that is ever going to happen. Regardless, making decisions like this is part of being a mod. I don't think that the votes in favor of allowing it should be definitive at all, but I do think they should be considered by the mods in making their decision.
And also, the only people who know it's juggs are those of us who have been around awhile.
There are people who still don't know juggs is Rory.
My point wasn't that every single person on the board knows the precise identity of who is behind the account. My point was that it's not being hidden, as in a case of one person pretending to be different people to create confusion and stir the pot. The mods all know who is who in this situation, as do most, if not all, of the members who care to know.
See the problem I have with what you are saying, is that YOU are deciding what is highly unlikely/what is funny/allowed etc.
Yes, and if we all voted to jump off a bridge, that should happen as well. It's not really a logical argument because it seems extraordinarily unlikely that that is ever going to happen. Regardless, making decisions like this is part of being a mod. I don't think that the votes in favor of allowing it should be definitive at all, but I do think they should be considered by the mods in making their decision.
My point wasn't that every single person on the board knows the precise identity of who is behind the account. My point was that it's not being hidden, as in a case of one person pretending to be different people to create confusion and stir the pot. The mods all know who is who in this situation, as do most, if not all, of the members who care to know.
See the problem I have with what you are saying, is that YOU are deciding what is highly unlikely/what is funny/allowed etc.
What's the point if you keep making acceptions?
It's either a rule or it's not.
I'm not deciding anything. I am just voicing my opinion to add to the perspectives that the mods have available to consider in their decision of whether to allow the account or not.
Every rule has exceptions, and there's pretty much always someone out there who decides when and if the rule will be enforced. I could go out and murder someone right now in broad daylight in front of fifty witnesses, and the prosecuting attorney would still have the discretion to decide whether or not to prosecute me. And his or her decision would probably be based at least in part on public opinion and whether people are going to give him or her shit for sending me to trial or not. If we give our prosecuting attorneys that kind of discretion, I think we can give our mods the discretion to decide whether or not to allow one parody account.
See the problem I have with what you are saying, is that YOU are deciding what is highly unlikely/what is funny/allowed etc.
What's the point if you keep making acceptions?
It's either a rule or it's not.
I'm not deciding anything. I am just voicing my opinion to add to the perspectives that the mods have available to consider in their decision of whether to allow the account or not.
Every rule has exceptions, and there's pretty much always someone out there who decides when and if the rule will be enforced. I could go out and murder someone right now in broad daylight in front of fifty witnesses, and the prosecuting attorney would still have the discretion to decide whether or not to prosecute me. And his or her decision would probably be based at least in part on public opinion and whether people are going to give him or her shit for sending me to trial or not. If we give our prosecuting attorneys that kind of discretion, I think we can give our mods the discretion to decide whether or not to allow one parody account.
And I'm little confused. Basically what you are saying we should let juggs have two accounts bc murders can get off due to idiotic public opinion and greedy corporate lawyers?
I'm not deciding anything. I am just voicing my opinion to add to the perspectives that the mods have available to consider in their decision of whether to allow the account or not.
Every rule has exceptions, and there's pretty much always someone out there who decides when and if the rule will be enforced. I could go out and murder someone right now in broad daylight in front of fifty witnesses, and the prosecuting attorney would still have the discretion to decide whether or not to prosecute me. And his or her decision would probably be based at least in part on public opinion and whether people are going to give him or her shit for sending me to trial or not. If we give our prosecuting attorneys that kind of discretion, I think we can give our mods the discretion to decide whether or not to allow one parody account.
And I'm little confused. Basically what you are saying we should let juggs have two accounts bc murders can get off due to idiotic public opinion and greedy corporate lawyers?
Yeah that sounds like a super reason.
No, I'm saying we should let Juggs have the Capp Dogg account because it's funny and I don't see a legitimate reason not to allow it insofar as it doesn't seem to me that it violates the real purpose of the rule that it breaks (which, as I read it, is to prohibit people from stirring up trouble while hiding behind made-up personas).
My point regarding prosecutorial discretion was in direct response to your question about why even have rules. We have rules in order to maintain a civilized society. Sometimes, an act that technically violates the rule does not actually violate the reason behind the rule. That's why there is someone in place who gets to decide whether to enforce the rule in each situation. In our case, it's the mods. They get to decide, but, as with anyone who makes discretionary decisions, what they decide is likely to reflect how the society views the issue because if it doesn't, sooner or later, the people will take away their power.
I'm not sure where you got greedy corporate lawyers out of that, as prosecuting attorneys generally work for the state or federal government. It also would not necessarily be idiotic public opinion. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to decide that a person should not be prosecuted for murder.
And I'm little confused. Basically what you are saying we should let juggs have two accounts bc murders can get off due to idiotic public opinion and greedy corporate lawyers?
Yeah that sounds like a super reason.
No, I'm saying we should let Juggs have the Capp Dogg account because it's funny and I don't see a legitimate reason not to allow it insofar as it doesn't seem to me that it violates the real purpose of the rule that it breaks (which, as I read it, is to prohibit people from stirring up trouble while hiding behind made-up personas).
My point regarding prosecutorial discretion was in direct response to your question about why even have rules. We have rules in order to maintain a civilized society. Sometimes, an act that technically violates the rule does not actually violate the reason behind the rule. That's why there is someone in place who gets to decide whether to enforce the rule in each situation. In our case, it's the mods. They get to decide, but, as with anyone who makes discretionary decisions, what they decide is likely to reflect how the society views the issue because if it doesn't, sooner or later, the people will take away their power.
I'm not sure where you got greedy corporate lawyers out of that, as prosecuting attorneys generally work for the state or federal government.
and once again, i'll point out that is YOU deciding it is funny. i do not think he is funny.
i also disagree with what you are saying. as a teacher if i don't stand firm on rules, if i let someone get away with someone b/c "it's funny and i don't see a legitimate reason not to allow it", then it would be chaos.
and also, i was talking more about people like OJ, etc who obviously killed someone but still got away with it in part due to public opinion.
No, I'm saying we should let Juggs have the Capp Dogg account because it's funny and I don't see a legitimate reason not to allow it insofar as it doesn't seem to me that it violates the real purpose of the rule that it breaks (which, as I read it, is to prohibit people from stirring up trouble while hiding behind made-up personas).
My point regarding prosecutorial discretion was in direct response to your question about why even have rules. We have rules in order to maintain a civilized society. Sometimes, an act that technically violates the rule does not actually violate the reason behind the rule. That's why there is someone in place who gets to decide whether to enforce the rule in each situation. In our case, it's the mods. They get to decide, but, as with anyone who makes discretionary decisions, what they decide is likely to reflect how the society views the issue because if it doesn't, sooner or later, the people will take away their power.
I'm not sure where you got greedy corporate lawyers out of that, as prosecuting attorneys generally work for the state or federal government.
and once again, i'll point out that is YOU deciding it is funny.
No, I'm saying we should let Juggs have the Capp Dogg account because it's funny and I don't see a legitimate reason not to allow it insofar as it doesn't seem to me that it violates the real purpose of the rule that it breaks (which, as I read it, is to prohibit people from stirring up trouble while hiding behind made-up personas).
My point regarding prosecutorial discretion was in direct response to your question about why even have rules. We have rules in order to maintain a civilized society. Sometimes, an act that technically violates the rule does not actually violate the reason behind the rule. That's why there is someone in place who gets to decide whether to enforce the rule in each situation. In our case, it's the mods. They get to decide, but, as with anyone who makes discretionary decisions, what they decide is likely to reflect how the society views the issue because if it doesn't, sooner or later, the people will take away their power.
I'm not sure where you got greedy corporate lawyers out of that, as prosecuting attorneys generally work for the state or federal government.
and once again, i'll point out that is YOU deciding it is funny. i do not think he is funny.
i also disagree with what you are saying. as a teacher if i don't stand firm on rules, if i let someone get away with someone b/c "it's funny and i don't see a legitimate reason not to allow it", then it would be chaos.
and also, i was talking more about people like OJ, etc who obviously killed someone but still got away with it in part due to public opinion.
And again I say, I am not deciding anything and neither are you. The mods are the only ones who get to decide. We are having a conversation about whether or not it should be allowed.
I have trouble believing that under no circumstances would you ever make an exception to a rule in your classroom. Nothing is that absolute. Moreover, to the extent that you cannot make exceptions, you work with small children who don't understand subtleties. I like to think that the Inforoo community is generally made up of people who are able to grasp the concept of making exceptions when doing so is warranted.
As for OJ, pointing to a solitary example of one person getting away with something isn't really responsive to my general point that there are pretty much always exceptions to rules and people who get to decide whether to enforce the rules.
