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!!
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.
i don't make exceptions based on things that "are funny". some of my kids say some funny shit but it is inappropriate and i have to get onto them.
this isn't a legit reason to break the rules. it's another way for juggs to stroke his ego and his weiner, which you are all doing a great job of.
and do you really believe the inforoo community is made up of people who make good decisions? yeah.....
Juggs acts like a breathing piece of human shit 50% of the time he is on this board. The Big Capp Dog is funny, I'll give him that, but should he be rewarded because it's funny when he's just going to continue to be a fucking douchebag through his main account? How about he acts like a civilized human for a change and then he can have his toys back.
Serious question: does this thread actually mean anything? Did a mod ever come out and say "Hey, we're reconsidering the ban of the Capp Dogg account, so vote to help us decide?" Maybe ITM did at one point; I don't remember. I know Gibran voted no - maybe Druid did too? I don't remember, and I'm not going back to find out - so really to a certain extent it's only the mod's opinions that matter. They do a good job of modding and representing the interests of the overall community, and I believe that if this is actually up for debate and they still decide to go against the popular opinion, I still trust that they're making a decision that's best for Inforoo as a whole, because that's what they've always done - and I would feel the same way if they chose to unban the account.
But yea, my main question for the mods: is the banning of the Capp Dogg account actually up for debate and something that might change depending on the arguments and opinions expressed in this thread?
Juggs acts like a breathing piece of human shit 50% of the time he is on this board. The Big Capp Dog is funny, I'll give him that, but should he be rewarded because it's funny when he's just going to continue to be a fucking douchebag through his main account?
To be fair, R.B. Bellows in this incarnation is WAAY more cordial than the other accounts he deleted. He has been discussing music with people, rarely calling them "mouthbreathers" and so on. He always did - once he got past the "I'm smart and here's why" stuff - lately it's toned down and he has been dropping more musical knowledge than many.
Serious question: does this thread actually mean anything? But yea, my main question for the mods: is the banning of the Capp Dogg account actually up for debate and something that might change depending on the arguments and opinions expressed in this thread?
See my posts extolling the virtues of underwater tigris tigris in comparison to the potential outcome of continuing the discussion and referring to this exercise as drunken auto eroticism.
Both are time better spent. Anyone got a good poop joke?
Juggs acts like a breathing piece of human shit 50% of the time he is on this board. The Big Capp Dog is funny, I'll give him that, but should he be rewarded because it's funny when he's just going to continue to be a fucking douchebag through his main account?
To be fair, R.B. Bellows in this incarnation is WAAY more cordial than the other accounts he deleted. He has been discussing music with people, rarely calling them "mouthbreathers" and so on. He always did - once he got past the "I'm smart and here's why" stuff - lately it's toned down and he has been dropping more musical knowledge than many.
Serious question: does this thread actually mean anything? Did a mod ever come out and say "Hey, we're reconsidering the ban of the Capp Dogg account, so vote to help us decide?" Maybe ITM did at one point; I don't remember.
I stated (but it may be in some other thread) that I found the account funny and enjoyed it for the most part. But no, this poll is not official in any way.
Juggs acts like a breathing piece of human shit 50% of the time he is on this board. The Big Capp Dog is funny, I'll give him that, but should he be rewarded because it's funny when he's just going to continue to be a fucking douchebag through his main account? How about he acts like a civilized human for a change and then he can have his toys back.
Serious question: does this thread actually mean anything? Did a mod ever come out and say "Hey, we're reconsidering the ban of the Capp Dogg account, so vote to help us decide?" Maybe ITM did at one point; I don't remember.
I stated (but it may be in some other thread) that I found the account funny and enjoyed it for the most part. But no, this poll is not official in any way.
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.
i don't make exceptions based on things that "are funny". some of my kids say some funny shit but it is inappropriate and i have to get onto them.
this isn't a legit reason to break the rules. it's another way for juggs to stroke his ego and his weiner, which you are all doing a great job of.
and do you really believe the inforoo community is made up of people who make good decisions? yeah.....
It's all about context and consequences. In a classroom full of small children, it is a bad idea to let them break the rules just because something is funny, as doing so teaches them to act inappropriately, and part of your job is to help those children learn to act appropriately in society. On a message board full of somewhat more grown people where no one has identified any serious consequence to allowing a technical violation of this particular rule, then I think "because it's funny" is a totally legitimate reason to allow it. In the same vein, even if, as you imply, the vast majority of Inforoo members make terrible choices, it's not like we are asking anyone to decide the fate of a nation here.
I don't really care one way or another about how this affects Juggs's ego. I mostly chimed in because the only reasons that have been given against this were illogical, and I like to argue. And I've continued because I am really, really bad at letting someone else have the last word.
i don't make exceptions based on things that "are funny". some of my kids say some funny shit but it is inappropriate and i have to get onto them.
this isn't a legit reason to break the rules. it's another way for juggs to stroke his ego and his weiner, which you are all doing a great job of.
and do you really believe the inforoo community is made up of people who make good decisions? yeah.....
It's all about context and consequences. In a classroom full of small children, it is a bad idea to let them break the rules just because something is funny, as doing so teaches them to act inappropriately, and part of your job is to help those children learn to act appropriately in society. On a message board full of somewhat more grown people where no one has identified any serious consequence to allowing a technical violation of this particular rule, then I think "because it's funny" is a totally legitimate reason to allow it. In the same vein, even if, as you imply, the vast majority of Inforoo members make terrible choices, it's not like we are asking anyone to decide the fate of a nation here.
I don't really care one way or another about how this affects Juggs's ego. I mostly chimed in because the only reasons that have been given against this were illogical, and I like to argue. And I've continued because I am really, really bad at letting someone else have the last word.
so i'm teaching them how to act in society, only for them to disregard it b/c some people think it's funny and "not hurting anyone"?
wow. what a great waste of time for me!
and i'll also point out no one has addressed him harassing pondo in his thread. i am surprised you are all so blind to how bullying starts.
edit: and as far as that smarty pants comment about the fate of the nation, i'm not the one who brought up jumping off a cliff or murder.
Last Edit: Oct 27, 2014 20:41:43 GMT -5 by EAP - Back to Top
so i'm teaching them how to act in society, only for them to disregard it b/c some people think it's funny and "not hurting anyone"?
wow. what a great waste of time for me!
and i'll also point out no one has addressed him harassing pondo in his thread. i am surprised you are all so blind to how bullying starts.
edit: and as far as that smarty pants comment about the fate of the nation, i'm not the one who brought up jumping off a cliff or murder.
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.)
so i'm teaching them how to act in society, only for them to disregard it b/c some people think it's funny and "not hurting anyone"?
wow. what a great waste of time for me!
and i'll also point out no one has addressed him harassing pondo in his thread. i am surprised you are all so blind to how bullying starts.
edit: and as far as that smarty pants comment about the fate of the nation, i'm not the one who brought up jumping off a cliff or murder.
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.)
i keep bringing it up b/c people keep saying he never bullied anyone with it. that is incorrect.
if you had taken two seconds to read the thread you would have noticed that juggs deleted several of his posts, which are responded to by other people.
and i'm not sure how my "meltdown" equates with me having mental illness (which is a super cool thing to joke about! kudos for that asshole), but if that's the case then welcome to the club my friend b/c you are very much mentally ill.
Last Edit: Oct 27, 2014 21:04:30 GMT -5 by EAP - Back to Top
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.)
i keep bringing it up b/c people keep saying he never bullied anyone with it. that is incorrect.
if you had taken two seconds to read the thread you would have noticed that juggs deleted several of his posts, which are responded to by other people.
and i'm not sure how my "meltdown" equates with me having mental illness (which is a super cool thing to joke about! cool), but if that's the case then welcome to the club my friend b/c you are very much mentally ill.
For the record, all the posts associated with the "juggernaut" account have been deleted.
Not a single post by the Big Capp Dogg has ever been deleted.
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.)
i keep bringing it up b/c people keep saying he never bullied anyone with it. that is incorrect.
if you had taken two seconds to read the thread you would have noticed that juggs deleted several of his posts, which are responded to by other people.
and i'm not sure how my "meltdown" equates with me having mental illness (which is a super cool thing to joke about! cool), but if that's the case then welcome to the club my friend b/c you are very much mentally ill.
No Capp Dogg posts were deleted. This thread is about the Capp Dogg.
I am not joking about mental illness, but I can assure you that I have not been diagnosed with it. Why do you associate having a sense of humor on an internet forum with mental illness?
It's all about context and consequences. In a classroom full of small children, it is a bad idea to let them break the rules just because something is funny, as doing so teaches them to act inappropriately, and part of your job is to help those children learn to act appropriately in society. On a message board full of somewhat more grown people where no one has identified any serious consequence to allowing a technical violation of this particular rule, then I think "because it's funny" is a totally legitimate reason to allow it. In the same vein, even if, as you imply, the vast majority of Inforoo members make terrible choices, it's not like we are asking anyone to decide the fate of a nation here.
I don't really care one way or another about how this affects Juggs's ego. I mostly chimed in because the only reasons that have been given against this were illogical, and I like to argue. And I've continued because I am really, really bad at letting someone else have the last word.
so i'm teaching them how to act in society, only for them to disregard it b/c some people think it's funny and "not hurting anyone"?
wow. what a great waste of time for me!
and i'll also point out no one has addressed him harassing pondo in his thread. i am surprised you are all so blind to how bullying starts.
edit: and as far as that smarty pants comment about the fate of the nation, i'm not the one who brought up jumping off a cliff or murder.
I feel like you are intentionally missing my point. You are teaching them to act appropriately, and at that age, that begins with following rules. As a person gets older, he or she also learns that there are subtleties to when rules need to be followed and when they do not.
I was not involved in the Pondo thread, so I can't speak to that. I also never said that Juggs was always rainbows and roses to everyone. I will say that generally, I find him amusing, and I think that most of the more over-the-top things that he has said are so over the top that they are hard to take too seriously.
I'm not sure what your last point is. We are also not asking anyone to decide whether we should all jump off cliffs or commit murder.
so i'm teaching them how to act in society, only for them to disregard it b/c some people think it's funny and "not hurting anyone"?
wow. what a great waste of time for me!
and i'll also point out no one has addressed him harassing pondo in his thread. i am surprised you are all so blind to how bullying starts.
edit: and as far as that smarty pants comment about the fate of the nation, i'm not the one who brought up jumping off a cliff or murder.
I feel like you are intentionally missing my point. You are teaching them to act appropriately, and at that age, that begins with following rules. As a person gets older, he or she also learns that there are subtleties to when rules need to be followed and when they do not.
I was not involved in the Pondo thread, so I can't speak to that. I also never said that Juggs was always rainbows and roses to everyone. I will say that generally, I find him amusing, and I think that most of the more over-the-top things that he has said are so over the top that they are hard to take too seriously.
I'm not sure what your last point is. We are also not asking anyone to decide whether we should all jump off cliffs or commit murder.
yeah. we agree to disagree on that. your job entails bending and breaking rules, finding loopholes, to get the desired result. in this it makes sense you would see it from that point of view. my job entails growing them into competent adults, which to me means they follow rules and laws of society (both spoken and unspoken) and that they are not a burden on anyone else.
btw our class rules are: i will make smart choices i will make safe choices i will do the right thing i will make kind choices
i brought that up b/c you were trying to be sassy saying we weren't deciding the fate of the nation, yet when i decided to change them name to INFOPOO you said it was like all jumping off a cliff. then you likened a murderer to juggs.
You were scared of sharks? No problem; avoid salt water and you should be safe.
Tigers are jumping in pools chasing meat! You are worried about this thread being a tutorial on the proper ways to raise kids?! We can't even go swimming anymore!
I feel like you are intentionally missing my point. You are teaching them to act appropriately, and at that age, that begins with following rules. As a person gets older, he or she also learns that there are subtleties to when rules need to be followed and when they do not.
I was not involved in the Pondo thread, so I can't speak to that. I also never said that Juggs was always rainbows and roses to everyone. I will say that generally, I find him amusing, and I think that most of the more over-the-top things that he has said are so over the top that they are hard to take too seriously.
I'm not sure what your last point is. We are also not asking anyone to decide whether we should all jump off cliffs or commit murder.
yeah. we agree to disagree on that. your job entails bending and breaking rules, finding loopholes, to get the desired result. in this it makes sense you would see it from that point of view. my job entails growing them into competent adults, which to me means they follow rules and laws of society (both spoken and unspoken) and that they are not a burden on anyone else.
btw our class rules are: i will make smart choices i will make safe choices i will do the right thing i will make kind choices
i brought that up b/c you were trying to be sassy saying we weren't deciding the fate of the nation, yet when i decided to change them name to INFOPOO you said it was like all jumping off a cliff. then you likened a murderer to juggs.
Yeah, I'm not the kind of attorney that you apparently think I am, and my job is pretty much the opposite of what you described. But I also know that the rules and laws of society are made by people, who are fallible. Because of that, while the rules and laws of society work as general guidelines, they don't always work if applied inflexibly.
I did compare your Infopoo example to jumping off a cliff, in the sense that neither is likely to happen. I did not liken a murderer to Juggs. I used murder as an extreme example to illustrate my point that someone pretty much always has the ability to enforce rules in a flexible manner.
yeah. we agree to disagree on that. your job entails bending and breaking rules, finding loopholes, to get the desired result. in this it makes sense you would see it from that point of view. my job entails growing them into competent adults, which to me means they follow rules and laws of society (both spoken and unspoken) and that they are not a burden on anyone else.
btw our class rules are: i will make smart choices i will make safe choices i will do the right thing i will make kind choices
i brought that up b/c you were trying to be sassy saying we weren't deciding the fate of the nation, yet when i decided to change them name to INFOPOO you said it was like all jumping off a cliff. then you likened a murderer to juggs.
Yeah, I'm not the kind of attorney that you apparently think I am, and my job is pretty much the opposite of what you described. But I also know that the rules and laws of society are made by people, who are fallible. Because of that, while the rules and laws of society work as general guidelines, they don't always work if applied inflexibly.
I did compare your Infopoo example to jumping off a cliff, in the sense that neither is likely to happen. I did not liken a murderer to Juggs. I used murder as an extreme example to illustrate my point that someone pretty much always has the ability to enforce rules in a flexible manner.
we will agree to disagree. as someone who has a major problem with people not doing what they are supposed to be doing (especially when it affects others), i refuse to accept that this something to even be bothered with.
and you know what. you're absolutely right. sometimes i do bend the rules. and you know who i almost ALWAYS bend them for? the star students who do what they are supposed to be doing 99%. if juggs was in my class his nose would be in the corner all day long.
Last Edit: Oct 27, 2014 22:48:14 GMT -5 by EAP - Back to Top
Juggs acts like a breathing piece of human shit 50% of the time he is on this board. The Big Capp Dog is funny, I'll give him that, but should he be rewarded because it's funny when he's just going to continue to be a fucking douchebag through his main account? How about he acts like a civilized human for a change and then he can have his toys back.
Well you're certainly a ray of sunshine.
Juggs makes a good point here - your post is hypocrisy at it's most obvious.
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?
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.
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?
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.
