How Should Jon and The Band Go Out?

You make a great point, Javier, but let's consider the "FAT" discussion over.

It was only started to be negative, inflammatory, bigoted, and get a reaction. It's been dealt with.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

I don't think that saying that Jon is fat is bigoted, it's in any case descriptive (and maybe a little ironic considering that he compared himself with fat bald Elvis). Discussion of bodies always existed and will exist specially on public persons like him, and I guess we're all adult enough not to feel bad because "if Jon's fat, what am I!". That been said as a guy that right now has a lot of extra pounds and that, of Jon's fat, might be obese lol.

Still, he's totally trolling. He disrupted the thread on purpose, and everyone can see that he is nowhere near to fat, not objectively (because of what Javier said) not compared to last your at least for what I see.

What I wanted to say for a long time but I couldn't find the right thread is that he looks less buffed, his arms look way bigger on previous tour and so did his back... Maybe he just stopped working out? That plus the grey hair makes a "he aged too fast" look, as he looks more fragile. Still I don't think that means the band is near to the end: see Bryan Adams, the guy looks like he's 70, he is just a little bit more older than Jon, and he can rock and deliver an amazing show! Looks have nothing to do with it.

About the topic: I don't want then to go out. The right time was probably the Live 2011 tour but that train is long gone now, and if that had happened, we would have lost some of the great European What About Now leg shows like Cologne or Milan (was it Milan?). Probably I'd like them to still make records, still tour, and eventually one day, when someone asks them about the next tour and album he said "no, the band's done". A farewell tour sounds too forced to me.

I don't either! There's always the chance that I might like some of the new songs. So, I'm for new records. People need to understand that not all the music must be These Days.

Sent from my Galaxy S5 (G900H) using Tapatalk.

Though I wholeheartedly support Jon and the band continuing, Jon would be blessed to have half the voice that Bryan Adams still has. He absolutely killed it at the AFL Grand Final today!

I agree, but I was talking only about the looks :P

I know being a moderator is a thankless task and I appreciate the work you guys do; but this just has “witch-hunt” written all over it. It’s clear that OJ was making a joke about Jon’s reference to not being “Fat Elvis”. While I’m not a fan of making jokes about ppl, nothing he said even came close to legitimately qualifying as “bigotry”. And it wasn’t inflammatory unless someone just has a knee-jerk reaction to anything negative about Jon.

In your “borderline trolls” discussion, did you also discuss ppl who were “obnoxious, negative, bigoted, inflammatory, and posted with the intent to provoke emotional response or disrupt the normal tone of discussions” when the “inflammatory” comments were made in reference to Richie? If so, there’s a 1300 page thread that is slam-loaded with those kinds of comments about him. Where is all that righteous indignation when ppl (including a moderator or two) are beating Richie to smithereens?

If you need more recent examples, this is from the “New Bon Jovi album” thread:

That meets the criteria you listed (except I wouldn’t call someone ‘obnoxious’). It’s negative, bigoted (ageism – at least as legitimately as OJ targeted obesity and body image), inflammatory, provoked emotional response and could have disrupted the normal tone of the discussion. It wasn’t flagged as ‘off-topic’; but it clearly was, since the thread was about the new Bon Jovi album. The only prior reference to Richie was a snide post from Alphavictim, which led to “the disruption”. The amusing thing is that ezearis and Alphavictim had just complained on the etiquette thread about how threads were often derailed into “Richie drama”.

Granted, that particular thread wasn’t “derailed” for long. But had I not ignored my immediate impulse to respond to ezearis’ comment, one thing would have led to another and it probably would have been. (And in all likelihood, I would have been the one accused of derailing, even though Alphavictim started it with his comment).


In your discussion, did the moderators also consider comments that are directed at other posters? If so, I’d like to refer you to the recent “etiquette” sticky for a couple of examples:

And so there’s no question about who Alphavictim is referring to, he elaborates:

Then later, in his reply to ezearis, he continued:

From his posts, I gather these are the offenses for which he thinks people should be banned:
1) flooding threads with bullshit and smartassery
2) making threads about themselves
3) causing discussions to suffer, and
4) pissing people off.

Talk about trying to kill a forum! I can’t think of anyone who posts with any regularity that isn’t sometimes guilty of all of these. It’s all a part of being involved with a discussion board. If people don’t like what someone posts or doesn’t want to read their “ego-drivel”, is it really so hard to just ignore it, or to consider the source and move on? Just because one person doesn’t find a post interesting doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone feels the same way. Individual posts don’t kill threads. If the subject is still of interest, someone will eventually get it back on topic. Only a lack of interest in the original topic will eventually cause a thread to die.

In the midst of that exchange, Seb posted this diplomatic comment:


Yeah. No bigotry there.

Sounds like direct attacks to me, and again, simply because he disagrees with their opinions.

Even though they are at least as guilty of “TROLLING” (by your definition) as OJ is, ezearis, Alphavictim, and Seb are all still posting. Not that they shouldn’t be, because whether people agree with them or not, they still have the right to offer their opinions – even if those opinions are sometimes boring, opinionated “bullshit and smartassery” that have the potential for disrupting the normal tone of discussions.

But by the same token, OJ has that right as well. JMO.

Aloha !

Nonsense. If disagreeing with me equals me wanting to get people banned I'd have to get 90% of the board banned as I hardly agree with anyone here. I've rarely agreed with you on anything Richie-related and I'm not out there claiming you ought to be gone as well.

I don't think OldJoysey was supposed to get banned because of that because the only person having a serious problem with his post in that topic was Becky. You ban people who ruïn a board, not people who make the occasional post you don't like.

It's not completely coïncidental this also happened over someone calling Jon fat. We all know Becky thinks Jon is our hero, saviour and the second coming of Christ, so that ban stinks. But then again, Becky has a tendency of letting her personal feelings towards a poster get in the way of her objective moderating "skills".

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

I know. And I love you, too, Sebbie.

I didn't mean to imply that you wanted to get Joysey banned. That was only to point out your derogatory use of the term "yank", as well as ezearis' reference to age, as examples of how prejudices show up in many posts and why using "bigotry" as a justification for banning Old Joysey trivialized legitimate complaints of bigotry.

People have opinions and, last time I checked, sharing opinions is what forums are all about. That's all I was trying to say. No offence intended.

(But, in all honesty, you did suggest that the simple solution to annoying posters was to ban them, didn't you?)

I just have little regard for idiocy and would in fact prefer a board where not about 1/3 of the postings are stuff you'll "just have to ignore". Some of these posters are wittingly stinking up the place, and that sucks, because they have zero reason not to - after all, they get what they want (attention, mostly). I didn't write up a constitution there, either, so don't imply that I felt that if somebody is a smartass, you should ban 'em. In the cases I referred to, it simply amounted, and I listed the things that did amount. It was not a "one of these applies, bam, they're gone"-thing.

That being said, if rocknation was now banned over calling Jon fat, that's akin to having Capone busted over... well, not even tax fraud. More like jaywalking. In the wrong neighbourhood, of course.

I think the post about him being fat was just trolling, not worth being banned over though.

It would be better if the mods always conferred with each other when about to band someone. I do not know if that was done this time, but the other mods may have had a different view and in any case, surely a warning would have sufficed. A ban was way harsh, and I don't even like that particular poster, but he was essentially banned for ripping the piss out of Jon.

Call Jon Bon Jovi fat? I don't even call Chris Christie fat!
http://www.drycounty.com/jovitalk/no...ml#post1196260