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!!
Part of the issue is that everyone is going by their own criteria for voting. Some people think exclusivity extends to any act with overlapping members, others don't. However, if the precedent is supposed to be that the owner of the drafted act has to give you permission to have the member (I don't agree with this, but whatever) krisplettuce drafted Jack U seemingly in order to block anyone from drafting Skrillex, Major Lazer, etc, so I don't expect he would be cool with this regarding his #1 pick.
And then, some think it depends on whether the artist can be expected to play shows in the next couple years, which is mostly a subjective opinion. This includes me. Blur played shows in 2015 and are a legitimate band that's been around forever, so I think it's reasonable here.
If you can demonstrate that an overlapping artist is active with multiple projects (Maynard with Tool an APC) then it is fine. Just as I don't think Jack U should prevent someone from taking Major Lazer or Skrillex since both of them have scheduled shows while Jack U is technically on a hiatus...
The drummer for Portishead is touring with Radiohead.
Well I already said they were off my board.
I guess my take is whether the offending band member can be replaced without diminishing the product.
If you went to see Soundgarden and Matt Cameron wasn't drumming for them, you probably wouldn't be too upset. I you went and saw the Roots and ?uestlove wasn't there, you might complain.
In general, though, I favor a strict interpretation of the exclusive tag.
Clive Deamer has been a member of the last two Radiohead tours. I just think you guys are enforcing rules differently for different picks/people. If Deamer can play in two bands then so can Damon.
I guess Portishead and Massive Attack shouldn't be draftable either. D'angelo? There are plenty of drafted acts with no upcoming shows/shows in the US and no reason to believe they'll tour here.
I linked to a tour date for Portishead when I picked them, proving that they are playing shows in 2017.
I guess Portishead and Massive Attack shouldn't be draftable either. D'angelo? There are plenty of drafted acts with no upcoming shows/shows in the US and no reason to believe they'll tour here.
I linked to a tour date for Portishead when I picked them, proving that they are playing shows in 2017.
I guess my take is whether the offending band member can be replaced without diminishing the product.
If you went to see Soundgarden and Matt Cameron wasn't drumming for them, you probably wouldn't be too upset. I you went and saw the Roots and ?uestlove wasn't there, you might complain.
In general, though, I favor a strict interpretation of the exclusive tag.
Clive Deamer has been a member of the last two Radiohead tours. I just think you guys are enforcing rules differently for different picks/people. If Deamer can play in two bands then so can Damon.
An artist can be in multiple groups and be picked multiple times if it can be demonstrated that both groups are active. This is why, as the exclusive owner of Tool, I didn't have an issue with APC. No one can demonstrate that both Gorillaz AND Blur will be active at the same time, especially when we know Gorillaz is the one that is active.
And I'm not sure why we keep rehashing Portishead. They probably shouldn't have been allowed, but no one questioned it at the time and it slid by, but we can't start legislating picks that occurred days ago...just because people's feelings are hurt.
^^^If Portishead has an actual date in 2017, Radius says yes, but I haven't looked, then they would fall under the same situation as Tool and APC. Both acts would be demonstrating that they are active and can be selected.
I like how this poll started with Blur, but no one can defend that one so instead, we discuss Portishad which can't be challenged...
^^^If Portishead has an actual date in 2017, Radius says yes, but I haven't looked, then they would fall under the same situation as Tool and APC. Both acts would be demonstrating that they are active and can be selected.
I like how this poll started with Blur, but no one can defend that one so instead, we discuss Portishad which can't be challenged...
Well you see, there is more than one discussion happening here, if you could pull your head out of your own ass long enough to read through you would see that. Some people are saying you must have proof that an act is active or have to be active in the USA (there are multiple picks with zero upcoming tour dates though). And half are arguing that bands that share members can't be picked (this hasn't been enforced either: see Portishead/Radiohead).
I would like to request that if a poll is required for a specific pick, that the draft be allowed to continue and other draftees be allowed to make picks. It puts the onus on people to make less questionable picks, and if they do, their iffy pick will be discussed and resolved but with the possibility that others could take alternatives.
I would like to request that all potential picks - regardless of iffiness - be submitted to me beforehand, so we can collectively (via me alone) decide on any and all potential issues or non-issues. Please note that my rulings can change at any time for any person, which might oddly coincide with when I'm up to pick. Thank you.
^^^If Portishead has an actual date in 2017, Radius says yes, but I haven't looked, then they would fall under the same situation as Tool and APC. Both acts would be demonstrating that they are active and can be selected.
I like how this poll started with Blur, but no one can defend that one so instead, we discuss Portishad which can't be challenged...
Well you see, there is more than one discussion happening here, if you could pull your head out of your own ass long enough to read through you would see that. Some people are saying you must have proof that an act is active or have to be active in the USA (there are multiple picks with zero upcoming tour dates though). And half are arguing that bands that share members can't be picked (this hasn't been enforced either: see Portishead/Radiohead).
Seriously, how old are you, 14? Of all people, I've provided examples and explanations. If an artist can perform in 2 groups within the same calendar year, and we can see booked shows for both groups, then I'm not going to have a problem with both being selected. If you can't demonstrate that the act is active, then it's a no. I went and looked at the potential Portishead show, and it's actually an Andy Smith DJ set, so if someone would have requested a poll, I would have said Portishead would be a no, but we can't exactly re-legislate at this point. I would also say that Jack U should have been a no since it appears that that group is on hiatus while Diplo and Skrillex are both active with other projects and no Jack U shows are booked. But I don't see you arguing about that one since no one actually cares. (But if someone wants Skrillex or Major Lazer, I will be the first to support that if it's questioned since it can be demonstrated that they are active).
If Blur is a no go I want to know the criteria, because I have another questionable backup.
To me the most important criteria shouldn't be if they're planning to play shows - it's just if they have been active since 2015 and aren't retired. Lots of bands take breaks.
Having future shows booked was never part of the criteria to be draftable, you're just making up rules.
And for the sake of clarity since my words are being twisted, I have no problem with Portishead being drafted. I was just using Portishead as an example to justify Blur.
Having future shows booked was never part of the criteria to be draftable, you're just making up rules.
And for the sake of clarity since my words are being twisted, I have no problem with Portishead being drafted. I was just using Portishead as an example to justify Blur.
The rules state active or potentially active.
By definition, if an act has current or future shows booked they are active and wouldn't be questioned. Duh. So if you are looking to pick a band with no shows on their schedule, then it would fall into "potentially active". This is where it becomes subjective and can be debated. Personally, if there isn't any solid proof about potential new music or new shows, then they aren't "potentially active".
These festivals we are all drafting for are theoretically happening at the same place at the same time, this makes it hard to me to justify making a band ineligible for logistical reasons. Requiring proof that a two acts can be active in the same year falls into that category for me. There's also many bands that have been drafted that we don't have proof they are in fact touring next year, but that's fine because that was never the criteria.
As far as exclusivity we've have conflicting results on that judgement. I'll defer to my original definition in that exclusivity is over a specific act not all it's individual members
I would like to request that if a poll is required for a specific pick, that the draft be allowed to continue and other draftees be allowed to make picks. It puts the onus on people to make less questionable picks, and if they do, their iffy pick will be discussed and resolved but with the possibility that others could take alternatives.
This was nominated a day or two ago. I said that I was down with changing the rule if ten participants stated that they wanted the change. I'll double check but I don't think that we reached that threshold.
I guess Portishead and Massive Attack shouldn't be draftable either. D'angelo? There are plenty of drafted acts with no upcoming shows/shows in the US and no reason to believe they'll tour here.
I linked to a tour date for Portishead when I picked them, proving that they are playing shows in 2017.
I don't think he believes Portishead, or any of the other bands should be ineligible. Hes just pointing out that the particular criteria discussed is unreasonable, or at minimum selectively applied
I would like to request that if a poll is required for a specific pick, that the draft be allowed to continue and other draftees be allowed to make picks. It puts the onus on people to make less questionable picks, and if they do, their iffy pick will be discussed and resolved but with the possibility that others could take alternatives.
This was nominated a day or two ago. I said that I was down with changing the rule if ten participants stated that they wanted the change. I'll double check but I don't think that we reached that threshold.
I volunteer to be ref. My decisions will be completely impartial, make absolutely no sense, will not be based on any kind of logic, knowledge, or reason, and are guaranteed to infuriate and piss off everyone.
I volunteer to be ref. My decisions will be completely impartial, make absolutely no sense, will not be based on any kind of logic, knowledge, or reason, and are guaranteed to infuriate and piss off everyone.
For proof of her experience with handling authority in such a manner, please see her entire time as a mod.
