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

[hoosier]

I still don't see why there can't be a written explanation of what will get someone banned, something that is visible to everyone and applicable equally to all. Otherwise you risk having rules applied arbitrarily and unequally.

How about we write in the rules "you will receive an automatic ban if you are Tank"?

Look, Hoosier. If it were any other poster, bar maybe one other, I would be standing with ya, shoulder to shoulder in your trench. But this guy has been warned so often by mods, reasoned with so often by other posters. I think in this case it's not wrong to ask what the greater group wants. Frankly, if I ran the place he'd have been gone without even mentioning it.

To be honest, when I saw this poll I expected more concerns like yours to be voiced.

I guess Harlan's taking the day off.

[Patler]

Franklin's point is that pure democracy, unchecked by the principle of liberty, devolves into what de Toqueville called "the tyranny of the majority." Franklin didn't want that for the US which is why the parable about liberty and well-armed lambs. You can parse words however you want ("democracy" or "republic"), but my main point remains that when we refer to our way of life as "democratic" we usually have in mind not just majority rule but also a respect for the rights of minorities and individuals against the coersion of the majority.

If that was truly an inherent part of our democracy, we would not have needed the Bill of Rights.

Personally, when I think of a democracy, I DO think of the possibility of tyranny by the majority. That is a basic flaw in a democracy. Thus, you have to establish laws and a justice system to temper the acts of the majority in a democracy.

[The Leaper]

So he would be banned for starting a thread that insulted the moderators? Do you really want insulting administrators to be grounds for banning? Even if you answer "yes" to that question (which might be a reasonable position if the insult is inflammatory enough) I still don't see why there can't be a written explanation of what will get someone banned, something that is visible to everyone and applicable equally to all. Otherwise you risk having rules applied arbitrarily and unequally.

Hoosier...are you supporting this site with your hard earned cash? If not, then you have ZERO RIGHT to be the minority bully determining what is or isn't right and demanding change.

If you don't like the format here, leave. Otherwise, what is the big deal? If you are an asshat, you deserve to be banned.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well, I'm not for banning any old asshat, but the "mother of all asshats" might be a different story.

[The Leaper]

Personally, when I think of a democracy, I DO think of the possibility of tyranny by the majority.

Precisely. Hoosier claimed exactly the opposite, and now has backtracked by bringing up liberty or some other term to describe what he meant. This vote is entirely democratic...and I think it is a very fair way in this context to determine the consequence.

If Hoosier is worried about precident, this shows that the moderators aren't just banning people at random...if you piss off the majority of the forum, you are likely to get tossed when the moderators put it up for a vote. So, the lesson is to not piss off the majority of the forum on a consistent basis.

What the hell is bad about that lesson?

[Patler]

I still don't see why there can't be a written explanation of what will get someone banned, something that is visible to everyone and applicable equally to all. Otherwise you risk having rules applied arbitrarily and unequally.

So what if the rules on this site are applied arbitrarily and unequally?
Does any of us have a RIGHT to be here? Not really. We are all guests.
If the arbitrary and unequal application of the rules gets out of hand, the board will soon enough disappear; so assuming those who control it really want it to continue and flourish there is a check on their "rulings".

On a site such as this, for activity such as this, "tyranny by the majority" really causes no injustice, because no legitimate right is lost; and it controls the activity and refines the nature of the board to that which the majority of the participants want it to be.

If some are extremely offended by banning Tank, they will leave.
If some are extremely offended by Tanks presence, they will leave.
For the good of the board the wishes of the majority should prevail.

[Zool]

Patlers like...smart and junk. He gets me.

[K-town]

I have gotten past the point of Tank being amusing; he's now fully in annoying mode.

Wasn't thrilled when Texas got here, either. His "it's all aliberal conspiracy" rhetoric gets old fast. Having said that, Tex keeps his political bloviating confined to the Romper Room, which is the way I thought this site was supposed to work.

I voted yes for the banning, but I'm now having second thoughts...

Second thoughts - hate Coldplay, can't stand Gwyneth Paltrow, and "extreme liberal" (extreme ANYTHING) is just mind-numbingly dumb.

Aarrg. Mercy, understanding and second chances for now.
Be-headings later.

[The Leaper]

As a side note...

I think it is HILARIOUS that Hoosier is whining about rights and not following the letter of the law when his avatar is none other than Bob Knight.

Talk about someone who didn't give a rat's ass about "democracy" or anyone's rights. His way or the highway. If it was up to Bob Knight, Tank would be getting choked right now.

[Pack-man]

I could give a rats ass if he goes or stays. I do think it was nice of the mods to give us a vote. They coulda & probably shoulda just removed this jerk without consulting anyone! He really wouldn't be missed!

[AtlPackFan]

So he would be banned for starting a thread that insulted the moderators? Do you really want insulting administrators to be grounds for banning? Even if you answer "yes" to that question (which might be a reasonable position if the insult is inflammatory enough) I still don't see why there can't be a written explanation of what will get someone banned, something that is visible to everyone and applicable equally to all. Otherwise you risk having rules applied arbitrarily and unequally.

Hoosier...are you supporting this site with your hard earned cash? If not, then you have ZERO RIGHT to be the minority bully determining what is or isn't right and demanding change.

If you don't like the format here, leave. Otherwise, what is the big deal? If you are an asshat, you deserve to be banned.

He does have the right. When MadTown put it up to a vote, he gave us all a right. IMHO, Hoosier is simply stating his opinion and asking for clarificaton of the rules. At worst, you can both agree to disagree.

But Hoosier, the forum is what it is. You can make suggestions and requests but eventually all decisions areMadTown's and if you don't agree with his decisions then you have to decide whether you can live with the forum as-is or if you need to find another place to POST.

Finally, I could give a crap whether APB/Tank goes or stays. When I see a thread he has started I don't even read it. If I HAD to vote, I would say bye-bye.

[HarveyWallbangers]

He does have the right. When MadTown put it up to a vote, he gave us all a right. IMHO, Hoosier is simply stating his opinion and asking for clarificaton of the rules. At worst, you can both agree to disagree.

I have no problem with Hoosier stating his opinion. Personally, I was just noting that I don't agree with his definition of democracy. I don't mind people having an opposing view either.

I think this poll is indictment on all of us. If Tank was ignored, he'd go away, but people didn't ignore him. Fundamentally, I have hard time voting to ban somebody. I voted yes only because I think the quality of this forum has gone way down since his return.

Isn't Hoosier a liberal? Funny that he'd talk about the rights of the minority. Liberals tend to be the ones to pass seat belt laws, smoking bans in privately-owned establishments, helmet laws, gun bans, etc. I guess the rights of the minority are only protected when the rights agree with their own personal interest. Otherwise, an argument will be that the issue affects everybody--when most of the time it has little affect on others. In this case, at least I was given an opportunity to cast a meaningful vote on the issue.

[Freak Out]

I'm usually not a "banning" type of person particularly in regards to free speech issues and most of Anti Polar Bears crap is so boring I just ignore it...but when you create 35+ user accounts as a moderator stated that leads one to believe he/she has some nefarious activity in mind.

[Charles Woodson]

So he would be banned for starting a thread that insulted the moderators? Do you really want insulting administrators to be grounds for banning? Even if you answer "yes" to that question (which might be a reasonable position if the insult is inflammatory enough) I still don't see why there can't be a written explanation of what will get someone banned, something that is visible to everyone and applicable equally to all. Otherwise you risk having rules applied arbitrarily and unequally.

How does this even apply? The fact that he was already banned overrules whatever else.

[Gunakor]

I have no problem with Tank staying on the forum. He is entertaining. It would be nice if he toned down the language. Also, Dude come up with a better schitck. The Sherman was the best GM is ridiculous!

Just wait until he starts calling TT a moron for not signing Joey Harrington to lead the Packers during the years after Favre.

[packers11]

28-7... boy is this one sided...

[GoPackGo]

[digitaldean]

28-7... boy is this one sided...

Just like the last Packers - Vikings game

[HarveyWallbangers]

So, who voted for Tank? Hoosier? Tank? Mazzin? Probably Harlan. Off with their heads too.


Actually, I'm kind of indifferent, but I did pile on with my "yes" vote.

[Bretsky]

Main conern on my end us what HW brought up. Quality if the forum is not as good with all the drivel and eventually good posters will get sick of it.