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!!
We compromised. Agreed for him to post as himself voicing CAPP DOGG'S rant about the festvial and the lineup. Most likely insulting us, all those who attend, the music, Ashley Capps, and anyone else along the way. Did not require a view of the first draft. Did not specify that anything was off limits. I asked that the insults be kept to the lineup, where they rightly belong. Knowing full well that the likelihood of that was slim. EVERYONE at this point knows who is behind the posts. So I am not sure why this would be a break or make sticking point.
We compromised. Agreed for him to post as himself voicing CAPP DOGG'S rant about the festvial and the lineup. Most likely insulting us, all those who attend, the music, Ashley Capps, and anyone else along the way. Did not require a view of the first draft. Did not specify that anything was off limits. I asked that the insults be kept to the lineup, where they rightly belong. Knowing full well that the likelihood of that was slim. EVERYONE at this point knows who is behind the posts. So I am not sure why this would be a break or make sticking point.
I feel like it is more of a need for the artist to be on brand, in character. A Plastikman set is more exciting than a Richie Hawtin one.
We compromised. Agreed for him to post as himself voicing CAPP DOGG'S rant about the festvial and the lineup. Most likely insulting us, all those who attend, the music, Ashley Capps, and anyone else along the way. Did not require a view of the first draft. Did not specify that anything was off limits. I asked that the insults be kept to the lineup, where they rightly belong. Knowing full well that the likelihood of that was slim. EVERYONE at this point knows who is behind the posts. So I am not sure why this would be a break or make sticking point.
So you are allowing him to make a post under his own account? I didn't know that this was a privilege that would serve as some kind of a concession in a discussion. I figured that kind of came with making your own account.
We compromised. Agreed for him to post as himself voicing CAPP DOGG'S rant about the festvial and the lineup. Most likely insulting us, all those who attend, the music, Ashley Capps, and anyone else along the way. Did not require a view of the first draft. Did not specify that anything was off limits. I asked that the insults be kept to the lineup, where they rightly belong. Knowing full well that the likelihood of that was slim. EVERYONE at this point knows who is behind the posts. So I am not sure why this would be a break or make sticking point.
So you are allowing him to make a post under his own account? I didn't know that this was a privilege that would serve as some kind of a concession in a discussion. I figured that kind of came with making your own account.
And why can't he use his own account to be the BIGG CAPP DOGG? He has changed his name so many times I can't keep track at this point. The post will be no less funny. No less insulting. No less entertaining.
So you are allowing him to make a post under his own account? I didn't know that this was a privilege that would serve as some kind of a concession in a discussion. I figured that kind of came with making your own account.
And why can't he use his own account to be the BIGG CAPP DOGG? He has changed his name so many times I can't keep track at this point. The post will be no less funny. No less insulting. No less entertaining.
Why can't the posts be done from the account that he already has? Is the username that essential to the gimmick? It seems like everyone already knew who was behind it.
The opposite point to this is that it was well known that it was juggs posting under the account. He just used the account to make in character posts for a comedic gimmick. He didn't do anything that would be out of character for him to post on his own account, so why is it a huge deal for him to just post it from a second account in order to make it funnier? itrainmonkeys posted as Mark Twain for a while under his account. The posts look weird now that he has reverted to his standard name. Moreover, I hate to bring them into it, but QSAROO could post everything they do from their various accounts. It just makes it a lot easier when they are able to post from one account. It just speaks to the double standard in play where some cite rules as a basis behind their No opinion when that account is obviously also against the rules. Everyone just allows it because everyone can agree they do amazing work.
Now, can you answer my question as to, if going forward, I should be using your previous post to discern that being able to post something censorship-free under my own original account is something that should be considering a bargaining chip in a theoretical discussion with mods?
Now, can you answer my question as to, if going forward, I should be using your previous post to discern that being able to post something censorship-free under my own original account is something that should be considering a bargaining chip in a theoretical discussion with mods?
How many times have we censored your posts? Or any posts for that matter? My post was in no way to be considered a bargaining chip. Just a matter of statement that he could post as he pleased as himself voicing the CAPP DOGG.
Now, can you answer my question as to, if going forward, I should be using your previous post to discern that being able to post something censorship-free under my own original account is something that should be considering a bargaining chip in a theoretical discussion with mods?
How many times have we censored your posts? Or any posts for that matter? My post was in no way to be considered a bargaining chip. Just a matter of statement that he could post as he pleased as himself voicing the CAPP DOGG.
Usually compromise (the word you use) involves two sides giving up something in order to where both parties are at least partially satisfied. I don't really see anything in your statement that the mods gave up in order to bring about a solution to the issue aside from allowing Larry Farnsworth to post under his own account. Not really much of a compromise.
How many times have we censored your posts? Or any posts for that matter? My post was in no way to be considered a bargaining chip. Just a matter of statement that he could post as he pleased as himself voicing the CAPP DOGG.
Usually compromise (the word you use) involves two sides giving up something in order to where both parties are at least partially satisfied. I don't really see anything in your statement that the mods gave up in order to bring about a solution to the issue aside from allowing Larry Farnsworth to post under his own account. Not really much of a compromise.
Here is the compromise. Our main issue with the account has been the use of said account to insult the festival we love, and the man behind it. We are setting that aside and allowing him to take full swing.
Usually compromise (the word you use) involves two sides giving up something in order to where both parties are at least partially satisfied. I don't really see anything in your statement that the mods gave up in order to bring about a solution to the issue aside from allowing Larry Farnsworth to post under his own account. Not really much of a compromise.
Here is the compromise. Our main issue with the account has been the use of said account to insult the festival we love, and the man behind it. We are setting that aside and allowing him to take full swing.
I still highly doubt that is the main reason that there is an issue with the account, but I will duly note that members' ability to insult Bonnaroo and/or Ashley Capps is something that is right on the edge of being forbidden.
Seriously, Bonnaroo actively promoted a skit in which a puppet went around bonnaroo calling everyone a smelly hippie right to their faces. Insult comedy is funny as hell. "It's mean" is not a good reason to censor something
Here is the compromise. Our main issue with the account has been the use of said account to insult the festival we love, and the man behind it. We are setting that aside and allowing him to take full swing.
I still highly doubt that is the main reason that there is an issue with the account, but I will duly note that members' ability to insult Bonnaroo and/or Ashley Capps is something that is right on the edge of being forbidden.
Dave Maynar, speculate away as to what our motives are. This topic has been discussed ad nauseaum with juggs > before we allowed it the first time > during its use > when we decided to pull the plug and the reasons for doing so.
Yes, "I will duly note that members' ability to insult Bonnaroo and/or Ashley Capps is something that is right on the edge of being forbidden" that is a good idea. As it fits perfectly with the stated board guidelines:
"No flaming, obscenity, or otherwise being rude. Treat people the way you would want to be treated. Just because it's the internet does not give anyone the excuse to insult other members. We'd like to keep the spirit of Bonnaroo intact on this message board."
Usually compromise (the word you use) involves two sides giving up something in order to where both parties are at least partially satisfied. I don't really see anything in your statement that the mods gave up in order to bring about a solution to the issue aside from allowing Larry Farnsworth to post under his own account. Not really much of a compromise.
Here is the compromise. Our main issue with the account has been the use of said account to insult the festival we love, and the man behind it. We are setting that aside and allowing him to take full swing.
Really, our main issue and why the plug was pulled the first time was because he started going after individual members and their posts after we told him to focus mostly on the lineup rants and keep it to the music section. Some members came forward feeling harassed and some complained about him being allowed a duplicate account.
When he created the duplicate account we (the mods) were still discussing allowing a second account for joke purposes. I PMed Juggs the loose guidelines of what we expected from the account considering we were bending our own rules and allowing a duplicate (especially to Juggs who was already known for insults and fighting with/pissing off other members and had issues with mods in the past).
We basically said what Druid said earlier: Keep the rants to the music section and focus on the lineup/fest. I specifically stated that we would also have to pull the plug if members complained about him having a duplicate. Both of those things happened and so we pulled the plug. Then he made another account despite the rules on duplicates and posted as Capp Dogg. Even with all this we didn't ban Juggs regular account (though some wanted to) and through it all I had to defend my position of pushing for it to be allowed.
I've made it more than clear that I found that posts funny. I also don't see what the problem is with posting it under his current account. If we're so concerned with "the posts looking weird later because he changed his name" then the rants can be posted in quotes that are edited to show "The Capp Dogg" as the poster. Or hell....start up a blog or twitter account and then link to the rants.
All that Druid was initially trying to say was that the request for a duplicate account is not happening. Feel free to post the rants under the current account. I'm sorry this upsets so many people but we've given it a few chances before and I feel we have definitely lenient with a lot of other issues that pop up on here. I don't believe the Capp Dogg posts were ever censored by us. It was mostly about a duplicate account causing problems with other members and us sticking to the original agreement.
[Really, our main issue and why the plug was pulled the first time was because he started going after individual members and their posts after we told him to focus mostly on the lineup rants and keep it to the music section. Some members came forward feeling harassed and some complained about him being allowed a duplicate account.
I'm still unclear as to when this ever happened. It's been cited numerous times, but I don't ever recall this taking place.
Just say you're sorry and that Capp Dogg will never single out an individual member today, tomorrow, or ever.
[Really, our main issue and why the plug was pulled the first time was because he started going after individual members and their posts after we told him to focus mostly on the lineup rants and keep it to the music section. Some members came forward feeling harassed and some complained about him being allowed a duplicate account.
I'm still unclear as to when this ever happened. It's been cited numerous times, but I don't ever recall this taking place.
I have PMs between you and I from 2012. Not sure if you still have them since you've deleted/changed your account a few times.
You PMed me a couple of times saying the Capp Dogg account should have his own account. The first was November 2, 2012. I mentioned that I didn't think it would fly with others and that people would know it was you pretty fast. You actually responded with "Fair point, I need to stop trolling anyway haha." That's 100% a quote from you. So then a month later in December you bring it up again.
I was actually already bringing it up to the other mods after you asked the first time and it was being debated. Then on December 6th, 2012 you PMed me and another Mod (or two) asking us "How fast are you going to ban/delete the account I'm about to make for Capp Dogg" so you were basically telling us you were getting ready to make a duplicate account anyway. You explained you were getting tired of posting under your own account with it.
Here is my response word for word:
Dec 6, 2012 13:58:25 GMT -5 itrainmonkeys said:
It's being discussed. We see the humor in it and think it could be fun. One of the things we'd want is that you only use that name for posting the capp dogg rants and don't use it to make fun of or get into arguments/debates with people under that name. Basically don't use it like a normal account...just do your rants in the TML. It shouldn't be an account you use to fuck with people individually and stuff like that....that's for your juggs account
Another issue we see coming up is when all the other people want to follow your footsteps and make their own duplicate account to make jokes. That's something we really don't want and if there turn out to be a ton of complaints about you having a dupe and nobody else being allowed we'd maybe pull the plug on it.
Still waiting to hear from a few people but it likely won't be a big problem.
Now....you'll see that I point out it was being discussed and that I was still waiting to hear from a few people about it. You wasted no time at all and before I gave you green liht for a duplicate account.
This is all in my inbox/outbox.
Some of the mods who didn't give the go-ahead were annoyed by you jumping the gun and wanted us to pull the plug immediately. I fought long and hard defending the account until we started getting complaints coming in.
I have PMs between you and I from 2012. Not sure if you still have them since you've deleted/changed your account a few times.
You PMed me a couple of times saying the Capp Dogg account should have his own account. The first was November 2, 2012. I mentioned that I didn't think it would fly with others and that people would know it was you pretty fast. You actually responded with "Fair point, I need to stop trolling anyway haha." That's 100% a quote from you. So then a month later in December you bring it up again.
I was actually already bringing it up to the other mods after you asked the first time and it was being debated. Then on December 6th, 2012 you PMed me and another Mod (or two) asking us "How fast are you going to ban/delete the account I'm about to make for Capp Dogg" so you were basically telling us you were getting ready to make a duplicate account anyway. You explained you were getting tired of posting under your own account with it.
Here is my response word for word:
Now....you'll see that I point out it was being discussed and that I was still waiting to hear from a few people about it. You wasted no time at all and before I gave you green liht for a duplicate account.
This is all in my inbox/outbox.
I meant the whole "going after members" bit. I don't think that account ever purposefully made fun of any one individual. It was always broad swipes at the fanbase in general.
Well you did tell someone you would have aborted them. That's one that sticks out in my memory but there's a few other examples or members who came forward complaining about the account/feeling like they were being targeted. Perhaps you didn't realize some of the jokes/rants would be taken so personally. Perhaps the members weren't as thick-skinned as you and some other members are. I'm not really sure.
Edit: Also, the first BCD post was December 7, 2012. Pretty sure the green light had been given by that point?
That's one day after I said "It's still being discussed" and "waiting to hear from a few members but it likely won't be a problem". I know everyone hates that the mods tend to discuss things with each other before making certain decisions but I do not believe the green light had been given. I'll have to look through the mod sub-forum to see if there are any posts where we express our surprise that the account had already been started. If I find evidence that we did give you the green light then I'll admit I was wrong with that part of the explanation.
Edit: Yea, I found it. You were not given the green light to start a second account. Here is CKS pointing out the new account/post to other mods and my response:
I told him we were still discussing it. His initial PM did make it sound like it was something he was going to do but was asking us if it would be deleted immediately but I didn't think he'd post as it so soon. So far it's just that one post. I did tell him that if it were to be okay we'd want him to not do any regular posting...just those rants. Gotta keep an eye on it.
I meant the whole "going after members" bit. I don't think that account ever purposefully made fun of any one individual. It was always broad swipes at the fanbase in general.
Well you did tell someone you would have aborted them. That's one that sticks out in my memory but there's a few other examples or members who came forward complaining about the account/feeling like they were being targeted. Perhaps you didn't realize some of the jokes/rants would be taken so personally. Perhaps the members weren't as thick-skinned as you and some other members are. I'm not really sure.
Edit: Also, the first BCD post was December 7, 2012. Pretty sure the green light had been given by that point?
That's one day after I said "It's still being discussed" and "waiting to hear from a few members but it likely won't be a problem". I know everyone hates that the mods tend to discuss things with each other before making certain decisions but I do not believe the green light had been given. I'll have to look through the mod sub-forum to see if there are any posts where we express our surprise that the account had already been started. If I find evidence that we did give you the green light then I'll admit I was wrong with that part of the explanation.
Well, if he was talking about Ohio, can you really blame him?
Well you did tell someone you would have aborted them. That's one that sticks out in my memory but there's a few other examples or members who came forward complaining about the account/feeling like they were being targeted. Perhaps you didn't realize some of the jokes/rants would be taken so personally. Perhaps the members weren't as thick-skinned as you and some other members are. I'm not really sure.
Yeah, Launchpad set that joke up nicely. I fondly recall that one.
Also, this is a nice precedent. Next time someone make comments about, say, how the crowd at Coachella sucks, I'm going to take it personally and complain. I can only hope that anyone, anywhere, making broad fun of a large swath of festival goers is dealt with as swiftly. I hope everyone who voted "yes" in this poll joins me in rising up in outrage.
Next time someone make comments about, say, how the crowd at Coachella sucks, I'm going to take it personally and complain. I can only hope that anyone, anywhere, making broad fun of a large swath of festival goers is dealt with as swiftly.
You make great sport in ripping apart other festivals. Not sure if this won't backfire.
