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!!
Post by trantsgiving on Feb 6, 2023 13:59:42 GMT -5
I don't mind the "replace a member" rule that Teddy made in the stadium telethon draft but for the future, I prefer the one we used in the zombie draft (or I guess, the inverse of it) which was that a band is inactive if a member who is vital to the existence of the group dies. I can't think of a good example for this draft off the top of my head but think like MCA of Beastie Boys.
I don't mind the "replace a member" rule that Teddy made in the stadium telethon draft but for the future, I prefer the one we used in the zombie draft (or I guess, the inverse of it) which was that a band is inactive if a member who is vital to the existence of the group dies. I can't think of a good example for this draft off the top of my head but think like MCA of Beastie Boys.
I agree with this going forward if not just because the details of the rule can get complicated.
I don't mind the "replace a member" rule that Teddy made in the stadium telethon draft but for the future, I prefer the one we used in the zombie draft (or I guess, the inverse of it) which was that a band is inactive if a member who is vital to the existence of the group dies. I can't think of a good example for this draft off the top of my head but think like MCA of Beastie Boys.
this is a good rule, but we'd have to decide what group members are "vital to the existence of the group".
maybe instead: if a group member is dead, and the band has not explicitly said before the start of the draft they intend to replace them and continue on, then they aren't draftable.
i'd extend that same rule to bands that have officially broken up, i.e. in this draft Slayer. no shade for taking them under the current rules though i certainly would have.
I don't mind the "replace a member" rule that Teddy made in the stadium telethon draft but for the future, I prefer the one we used in the zombie draft (or I guess, the inverse of it) which was that a band is inactive if a member who is vital to the existence of the group dies. I can't think of a good example for this draft off the top of my head but think like MCA of Beastie Boys.
this is a good rule, but we'd have to decide what group members are "vital to the existence of the group".
maybe instead: if a group member is dead, and the band has not explicitly said before the start of the draft they intend to replace them and continue on, then they aren't draftable.
i'd extend that same rule to bands that have officially broken up, i.e. in this draft Slayer. no shade for taking them under the current rules though i certainly would have.
What if just a touring member dies and the band goes quiet for a few months? This happens often and could result in acts that aren't done being ineligible.
My rule sets a purposefully high bar to prevent absurd acts being taken. I'm talking like Beasties without MCA, Beatles without Lennon, or if the band says "we will never perform without them".
Post by trantsgiving on Feb 6, 2023 14:44:31 GMT -5
with that being said, it's a completely moot point and I'm just procrastinating doing my readings for school and I'm trying to justify it because some of my readings are on statutory interpretation.
That isn't a requirement. It says the same for Black Sabbath.
and if Ozzy was dead the pick would be a lot more questionable.
Under the currents rules though, it doesn't matter.
Under my rule, this would just be a question for a poll, whether or not Neil was "vital" to the existence of Rush as a whole. It's important to note that Rush came out for the South Park concerts. I can somewhat imagine a Rush show without Neil, even though it would suck. I can't really imagine a Sabbath show without Ozzy.
We allowed Linkin Park and Guests- I just think it's only valid if we replace the person who died with someone who's performed in their stead.
For the purposes of this draft, I am ok with reasonable rules that make more acts eligible because we have a limited pool relative to most of the drafts we do.
this is a good rule, but we'd have to decide what group members are "vital to the existence of the group".
maybe instead: if a group member is dead, and the band has not explicitly said before the start of the draft they intend to replace them and continue on, then they aren't draftable.
i'd extend that same rule to bands that have officially broken up, i.e. in this draft Slayer. no shade for taking them under the current rules though i certainly would have.
What if just a touring member dies and the band goes quiet for a few months? This happens often and could result in acts that aren't done being ineligible.
My rule sets a purposefully high bar to prevent absurd acts being taken. I'm talking like Beasties without MCA, Beatles without Lennon, or if the band says "we will never perform without them".
right on, that makes sense. i'm just trying to remove as much grey area as possible, as there could be dispute about what band members are vital. you are correct we would miss out on a potential act that very well might still get back together with a new member, but we'd avoid dumb arguments.
actually now i've talked myself into your rule, because dumb arguments are the lifeblood of this website.
Post by kingvamp999wrld on Feb 6, 2023 15:01:43 GMT -5
Teddy Flair do you remember who said to just tag and skip them for the rest of the game? I know it was me and at least two others. Maybe we should make note of that in the draft list
