How Should Jon and The Band Go Out?

The problem you run into, though, is that one man's idiocy is another man's wisdom - or at least an interesting read for some. I can find something interesting in nearly all the posts here, even the ones that I disagree with. Why should I be denied access to their thoughts simply because someone else finds them obnoxious?

I happen to enjoy honest debate, until it devolves into name-calling or bitchiness, even if it strays from the topic at hand through a natural progression. It will eventually get back on track if ppl are truly interested in the original topic. If it strays too far, the mods have the capability of moving it to a more appropriate thread or it can be taken to PMs. And if ppl don't want the discussion to stray at all, then perhaps they shouldn't introduce new subject matter that someone else might want to pursue further.

If ppl think particular members are "stinking up the place", they can use the ignore feature, as Captain Jovi suggested. I understand that the ignored posters might occasionally show up as quotes in other posts; but if that happens, apparently someone found the post interesting enough to respond; and if enough of those responses are negative (assuming they don't always come from the same equally annoying posters), the poster will eventually take the hint. Natural consequences. Problem solved.

And, btw, I didn't imply anything. You did that all by yourself. I understood that it was your cumulative frustration with OJ's and rocknation's posts and not a one-time thing; but even so, I don't think banning posters - simply because some find them annoying - is the answer. (And it was OJ who was "temporarily suspended" in this case, not rocknation.)

I wasn't picking on you or ezearis or Seb (although Seb is totally worthy of being picked on! ). I actually find most of the comments you guys post interesting and enjoy reading them, even if I sometimes disagree. I just used those examples to show how ludicrous and inconsistent it is, IMO, to ban anyone because of perceived bigotry or because they are annoying (to some) when others do the same things.

OJ was banned??? Oh No, Not For That, I Hope... The guy is totally harmless and a contributing member. Yes, he was Trolling but a warning would have been sufficient imo. I know they want to tighten the rules but this is not a good example...

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Just to clarify, he's only banned for 3 days

First of all, JackieBlue, I didn't made a reference to age to shame him for being over 50 years ago but a reference to his age difference with his girlfriend. Second, that comment was related as someone posted "at this pace, the Bon Jovi album will be released before Richie's? What's the guy doing?" (or something like that) and I replied that. I didn't made the original one, I was replying to one already done, the discussion went that way.

Would have been completely different if I would have gone to the New Bon Jovi Album thread and said "wow, this album will be shit because Richie's not on it, the label dropped them because no Richie AMIRITE?!?!" like it's been done several times. That's (in my opinion and you can agree or not) derailing a thread into a Richie drama. If a discussion goes in a way to something. You can't stop it. Like this, we shouldn't be having this discussion in this thread, but we are anyway.

I agree with everything stated here.

I remember I said that Jon has put on a few pounds before the tour started and I got Becky jumping on at me when it's clear he has.

My job is a Personal Trainer and I notice these things but apparently it must be an 'attack'

If Becky is now a moderator, shouldn't that be identified somewhere in her signature or something? Or is she just suggesting that someone be banned?

I find the whole thing ridiculous. The blog has long commented on Jon's looks particularly his hair so he is fair game. Maybe the wrong thread but not reaching the level of being a troll. It is obvious Jon has gained a fair amount of weight *for him* at least. It doesn't bother me as when I look at some of the old photos, I am concerned that he had "manorexic" body issues.

I agree, I do not want a farewell tour. They should just stop when they are ready but obviously they would sell more tickets if it was announced as a last tour. They would have to be careful though as how many farewell tours has Cher or Barbra Streisand now given? And would a record company let Bon Jovi continue to record and release music without touring?

I think there is a fine line with this one. One member got upset over something and another member kept going on with the topic, not to prove a point but to continue to tease the other member... now on the flip side, it's not the hashing thing and the member doing the teasing isn't an overly agressively one...

I think it was more like a brother teasing his sister verses one student bullying another...

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I know your comment wasn't about shaming anyone because of age. That is exactly why I used it as the example! It would be ludicrous to call your post a swipe at old people - just as it was, IMO, to say that OJ was targeting fat bald people with his. "Bigotry", if you recall, was one of the "reasons" listed for officially labeling OJ a "textbook" troll and hitting him with a 3-day suspension!


And I pointed out that you were responding to Alphavictim's comment. I didn't have a problem with his post there either. But that is exactly the kind of thing that opens the door to derailing the thread as discussions follow their natural course (which, again, I have no problem with - but there are those who do, especially if it starts to get heated).


If that had been the case, I might agree that it would be a deliberate derailment but, IIRC, most of the label discussions were started either on the Problems With The Label thread or the various Burning Bridges threads (detouring during discussions about the meaning of BB lyrics and the reasons for the break from the label). And rocknation's comments about Richie and his effect on the label and tour promotion could actually be traced back to the thread about Jon signing with Azoff.

When the label discussion itself veered in that direction, I think it was actually Seb who first mentioned that Richie (and the subsequent change in band personnel) may have been a significant part of the reason for the break with the label. And I honestly can't recall anybody saying that the new album was going to suck because Richie isn't on it.

Most of the derailments I remember came about because somebody made a comment and someone responded with a differing POV of view and it escalated from there. I don't think anyone has posted anything to deliberately take the discussion off-course. Well, except maybe the one a couple weeks ago where Seb, Tictoc (?) and RDK were going at it. That one meandered across several threads and did seem a little deliberate, IMO.

And I agree, this thread has shot way off-course. But it was already headed in that direction before either you or I jumped in!

Why wouldn't they? The band would get less money if they refused to promote the record via a tour, though.

Where does Bon Jovi go from here? Well, HOW they get the next album out will be a factor. Do they get another record deal, and if so, how big? As Jon himself points out, there are only two other major labels to choose from. His problem is Sony just handed $13M to Bruce Springsteen, and I don't believe their Asian mini-tour (before audiences who last saw them perform between zero and twenty years ago) convinced anyone at Warner that Bon Jovi is still a premium brand.

Do they try something independent -- a direct deal with iTunes or Spotify, for instance? Do they finance it themselves, or find investors? And as far as touring, now we'll find out exactly how much juice manager Irving Azoff has outside of his former employer Live Nation.