YOU decide Tank/Anti-Polar Bear's fate at PackerRats

[MadtownPacker]

To date there have only been 2 members banned from PackerRats. Tank/Anti-Polar Bear was the first and that was only after repeatedly creating multiple bogus accounts despite being allowed to post whatever he wants in the correct area. That wasnt good enough of course so he tried to act stupid, he got shut down.

During his vacations he would pick up a new IP (from his parents house most likely) and get on and since it was the holidays he was allowed to hang out. As usual he wore out his welcome before the door even closed behind him.

Now he wants to flame and start crap and if he actually wanted to talk about the topic it would be OK but he is just trying to get a reaction like a spoiled child. This is everyone's forum and with that said everyone needs to decide if they want him here or not. You dont have to comment, just vote in the poll and whatever the result is what will happen to him.


Tank/Anti-Polar Bear - You brought this on yourself and now those same people you love to piss off get to decide your fate. Dont you just love democracy? Good luck.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

lol. I better start looking for a new site.

[Joemailman]

I don't think he should be banned. I have no problem with him being allowed to post in the Garbage Can.

[Tarlam!]

I don't think it would surprize too many Rats on how I voted. I just adore being labelled a faschist and a Nazi.

Edit: That last sentence was sarcasm!

[Lurker64]

I would be less inclined to vote "yes" here if I had some evidence that Tank can do something other than "stir up shit." There are certainly other posters here who stir the pot and annoy me at times, but at least as often as they do that they actually contribute something meaningful, interesting, and/or useful. Tank, as far as I've seen, doesn't. "Contributing something positive" justifies occasional trollish behavior, but I haven't seen the former from Tank.

[cpk1994]

This forum has been good while he hasn't been here. He comes back and the forum disintegrates. Why le him back when things were just fine without him?

[gbpackfan]

Mad,

Please, ban him. Tank can be fun to talk with when he is on his meds but too often he forgets to take them. I have no desire to come to this website and sort through the BS threads he has posted.

[digitaldean]

Mad, I voted yes.

Posts like APB's make this site more like JSOnline. I, for one, can do without it.

Nothing against Tank personally, but most any other site would have him booted.

[Zool]

The bell tolls for thee Tanky poops. You sure can wear out a welcome.

[sheepshead]

He'll settle down. His act only goes so far.

[hoosier]

Did he violate some explicit rule that would justify banning him? If not and you ban him anyway, you're setting a dangerous precedent by banning someone for being unpopular. By the way, letting the majority have their way with APB isn't democracy, it's vigilante justice. Democracy is defending the rights of the minority, no matter how irritating, dumb, beligerent or wrong they might be.

[AV David]

He'll settle down. His act only goes so far.[/quote]

There is no evidence he will settle down. His history is too long with the same thread worn schtick. It has been going on for years.

You get up in the morning and it is a nice sunny day. You read an APB post and clouds automatically appear.

If some of you remember the dysfunction on the old "Dennis Packer Review" site, that is where APB belongs, not here.

Good Bye APB

[Zool]

Did he violate some explicit rule that would justify banning him? If not and you ban him anyway, you're setting a dangerous precedent by banning someone for being unpopular. By the way, letting the majority have their way with APB isn't democracy, it's vigilante justice. Democracy is defending the rights of the minority, no matter how irritating, dumb, beligerent or wrong they might be.

You also set a dangerous precedent if you let someone come in and do whatever they want. People eventually stop coming to the site because they dont want to weed through all the BS to get to something actually interesting to read. People stop showing up, site closes. If someone is specifically trolling on an hourly basis do you just keep letting it slide or do you do whats best for the site as a whole?

Mad is just trying to let the people decide the fate of 1 troll.

[The Leaper]

Democracy is defending the rights of the minority, no matter how irritating, dumb, beligerent or wrong they might be.

Uh...not really.

Democracy, by definition, placates a MAJORITY. It was created in direct opposition to monarchies and oligarchies where the minority ruled the majority.

[hoosier]

Did he violate some explicit rule that would justify banning him? If not and you ban him anyway, you're setting a dangerous precedent by banning someone for being unpopular. By the way, letting the majority have their way with APB isn't democracy, it's vigilante justice. Democracy is defending the rights of the minority, no matter how irritating, dumb, beligerent or wrong they might be.

You also set a dangerous precedent if you let someone come in and do whatever they want. People eventually stop coming to the site because they dont want to weed through all the BS to get to something actually interesting to read. People stop showing up, site closes. If someone is specifically trolling on an hourly basis do you just keep letting it slide or do you do whats best for the site as a whole?

Mad is just trying to let the people decide the fate of 1 troll.

If someone's behavior is really diminishing the quality of the forum then I can see the justification for putting a stop to it. But I think the only fair way to do that is to establish guidelines that everyone is aware of. Otherwise you end up banning someone for something that wasn't technically illegal when they did it, but that retroactively became "illegal" in their specific case. However uncool APBs behavior may have been, you can't right the situation by creating another wrong.

[Zool]

If someone's behavior is really diminishing the quality of the forum then I can see the justification for putting a stop to it. But I think the only fair way to do that is to establish guidelines that everyone is aware of. Otherwise you end up banning someone for something that wasn't technically illegal when they did it, but that retroactively became "illegal" in their specific case. However uncool APBs behavior may have been, you can't right the situation by creating another wrong.

The guy wont police himself though. He's just here to annoy as long as he can until he is removed. He wont stop. He has a track record.

[The Leaper]

If someone's behavior is really diminishing the quality of the forum then I can see the justification for putting a stop to it. But I think the only fair way to do that is to establish guidelines that everyone is aware of. Otherwise you end up banning someone for something that wasn't technically illegal when they did it, but that retroactively became "illegal" in their specific case. However uncool APBs behavior may have been, you can't right the situation by creating another wrong.

Hoosier, you are confusing this site as something that is operated in the public genre...supported and operated by and for the public. It is not.

The site is owned and operated by a private interest, and that private interest maintains the right to do with it whatever they choose...the same way I can't come over to your house and tell you what color paint you have to have on your walls.

If Mad wants to change your name to Hoosier Mama, he can...and there ain't nothin' you're gonna do about it.

[cpk1994]

He'll settle down. His act only goes so far.

You've nver been to JSO or Sportsbubbler have you?

[gbpackfan]

Hoosier,

The man can ban anyone he wants for whatever reason he wants. PERIOD. In this case, it's justified. Even if it wasn't, too fucking bad. Life isn't fair.

[hoosier]

If someone's behavior is really diminishing the quality of the forum then I can see the justification for putting a stop to it. But I think the only fair way to do that is to establish guidelines that everyone is aware of. Otherwise you end up banning someone for something that wasn't technically illegal when they did it, but that retroactively became "illegal" in their specific case. However uncool APBs behavior may have been, you can't right the situation by creating another wrong.

The guy wont police himself though. He's just here to annoy as long as he can until he is removed. He wont stop. He has a track record.

I have no problem with the forum policing him, but if it is to be done fairly then the rules have to be made explicit to everyone ahead of time. This is what the forum admin currently has posted under "Forum Rules":

Forum rules:

Other than threads or posts revealing private and/or personal information about others members, PackerRats.com does not censor any threads or posts. However we do ask that you utilize all the rooms available for posting.

Example: If a subject is about football, post it in the Packers section. If you feel like talking about anything off topic, post it in the Romper Room section. This is not just a website decision, it was also overwhelmingly decided on by vote of PackerRats.com members. So if an off-topic thread is made in the Packers section it will be moved to the Romper Room section. No deletions, no questions asked, just categorized correctly.

PackerRats.com values the individuality of all its members and encourages them to talk about anything they wish. Whatever you post does not reflect the views or opinions of PackerRats.com. It reflects yours. Your poster reputation is determined by what you post so you control your own destiny.

Thanks for joining the PackerRats.com family. We hope you enjoy the forum and community of our site. Go Pack Go!

Why couldn't someone add a simple statement to the effect that "Repeated instances of abusive or inflammatory behavior will be cause for banning"? Otherwise, in banning someone for being a troll, you're pretty much directly contradicting the idea that "PR values the individuality of all its members and encourages them to talk about anything they wish."