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."

[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.

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.

I'm not confusing anything, Leaper, I'm referring to Madtown's opening remark about "don't you just love democracy".

[Zool]

If only Tank wasn't such a douche bag, we wouldn't have to go through this every May/June.

[gbpackfan]

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."


Hoosier,

First off, have you ever dealt with Tank in the past? My guess is no. He doesn't stop, ever. He can be entertaining at times but mostly just annoying. If he is allowed to stay his posts will become more and more absurd and off topic. He has the ability to clog up the forums and turn this great place into the old jsonline.com forum. It was a nightmare. It got so bad we all left that forum. Why do you think packerrats was started? I can't thank Madtown and his posse enough for forming this site. I highly doubt Mad is going to let this forum suffer the same fate that the jsonline.com one did.

Second, what is with posting the rules and telling Mad to add a line? What ever happened common sense? If you come into the forum and create a problem, expect to get booted. Mad doesn't need to add anything to the rules. That type of thinking makes me sick (no offense). There are 100's, if not 1000's, of people that come to this site and have figured out how to act like adults and not get banned. But because ONE OR TWO morons can't figure it out, Mad has to change the rules? How does that make any sense?


Tank is an adult and has been warned over and over and over. Enough is enough.

[The Leaper]

What part of "you control your own destiny" do you not understand, Hoosier?

[The Leaper]

I'm not confusing anything, Leaper, I'm referring to Madtown's opening remark about "don't you just love democracy".

No, you clearly are confusing everything.

Mad hasn't banned Tank...he put it up for a vote among the forum members instead. That IS democracy, even if you think democracy is somehow fighting for the minority interest.

[hoosier]

I'm not confusing anything, Leaper, I'm referring to Madtown's opening remark about "don't you just love democracy".

No, you clearly are confusing everything.

Mad hasn't banned Tank...he put it up for a vote among the forum members instead. That IS democracy, even if you think democracy is somehow fighting for the minority interest.

I didn't say "fighting for the minority interest," I said "protecting the rights of minorities"--against the tyranny of the majority. Letting the majority decide the fate of an individual might FEEL good, but democracy it is not. It's tyranny of the majority. As Ben Franklin put it, democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. In this country at least, the principle liberty (or the defense of the rights of minorities) has always been at the heart of democracy.

[retailguy]

Good bye, good luck, good riddance.

Hoosier,

Plenty of stuff on file for violating the rules. We don't need new rules, we got him on ANY one of the existing ones.

[hoosier]

First off, have you ever dealt with Tank in the past? My guess is no. He doesn't stop, ever. He can be entertaining at times but mostly just annoying. If he is allowed to stay his posts will become more and more absurd and off topic. He has the ability to clog up the forums and turn this great place into the old jsonline.com forum. It was a nightmare. It got so bad we all left that forum. Why do you think packerrats was started? I can't thank Madtown and his posse enough for forming this site. I highly doubt Mad is going to let this forum suffer the same fate that the jsonline.com one did.

Second, what is with posting the rules and telling Mad to add a line? What ever happened common sense? If you come into the forum and create a problem, expect to get booted. Mad doesn't need to add anything to the rules. That type of thinking makes me sick (no offense). There are 100's, if not 1000's, of people that come to this site and have figured out how to act like adults and not get banned. But because ONE OR TWO morons can't figure it out, Mad has to change the rules? How does that make any sense?


Tank is an adult and has been warned over and over and over. Enough is enough.

I used to browse JSO forum before it went belly up, and my impression was that the great exodus happened not because of annoying posters but because of security problems. Whatever.

I've already stated my case for why it's important to make guidelines explicit especially when you're talking about censoring someone. I don't understand why the idea of putting that in writing makes you "sick"--after all, it was clear enough that there needed to be an explicit warning against posting personal information about other posters.

[hoosier]

Good bye, good luck, good riddance.

Hoosier,

Plenty of stuff on file for violating the rules. We don't need new rules, we got him on ANY one of the existing ones.

How so?

[retailguy]

Good bye, good luck, good riddance.

Hoosier,

Plenty of stuff on file for violating the rules. We don't need new rules, we got him on ANY one of the existing ones.

How so?

How about 35 separate user id's in ONE DAY?

[Zool]

Mad is actually too diplomatic with Tank IMO. He's violated plenty and he's been a general assface when given his 349th and 350th chances. Its not worth it anymore.

[MadtownPacker]

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 bring up a valid point. Tank was actually already banned for making multiple accounts which is considered troll or hacker type of activity. While not added in the rules section (I will add it) there was a poll about it over a year ago and the overwhelming majority decided multiplte accounts should not be allowed at all.

So basically this is like his death row appeal. He is only here now because he is on a different Internet connection. I have a high tolerance for Tank but if it cost this forum even one good member it is not worth it.

[The Leaper]

As Ben Franklin put it, democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. In this country at least, the principle liberty (or the defense of the rights of minorities) has always been at the heart of democracy.

Ben Franklin clearly disagrees with your assertion that democracy is interested in the rights of the minority, as I properly pointed out as being incorrect.

The United States was never a true democracy...it was always a republic that held firm to some democratic principles.

And none of this has anything to do with the fact that Tank controlled his own destiny as outlined in the forum rules, and now risks being banned from a privately controlled forum because of the destiny he chose.

[Pack-man]

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!

[hoosier]

As Ben Franklin put it, democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. In this country at least, the principle liberty (or the defense of the rights of minorities) has always been at the heart of democracy.

Ben Franklin clearly disagrees with your assertion that democracy is interested in the rights of the minority, as I properly pointed out as being incorrect.
The United States was never a true democracy...it was always a republic that held firm to some democratic principles.

And none of this has anything to do with the fact that Tank controlled his own destiny as outlined in the forum rules, and now risks being banned from a privately controlled forum because of the destiny he chose.

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.

[Tarlam!]

...there was a poll about it over...

Actually, Hoosier, this was how this forum was run in the first few months. We all got to vote on just about everything. It's in Mad's nature to want to decide a minimum autocratically.

What you didn't see around midnight your time, but I did, was a thread started by Tank in the RR with was a complete and utter slap in the face of the moderators helping to run this site.

It was removed almost immediately. 5 minutes later, Mad put up this poll.

I see your precedent setting example as very valid. But Tank was banned for a couple days, then a week, then a month then forwever. And frankly, if another poster starts along the same lines, I hope we get to vote again. I kinda like the precedent.[/b]

[hoosier]

...there was a poll about it over...

Actually, Hoosier, this was how this forum was run in the first few months. We all got to vote on just about everything. It's in Mad's nature to want to decide a minimum autocratically.

What you didn't see around midnight your time, but I did, was a thread started by Tank in the RR with was a complete and utter slap in the face of the moderators helping to run this site.

It was removed almost immediately. 5 minutes later, Mad put up this poll.

I see your precedent setting example as very valid. But Tank was banned for a couple days, then a week, then a month then forwever. And frankly, if another poster starts along the same lines, I hope we get to vote again. I kinda like the precedent.[/b]

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.

[HarveyWallbangers]

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.

By your own words, you admit democracy, if unchecked, "devolves into the tyranny of the majority." That's the great thing about our republic. It's a democracy in the sense that every citizen has right to participate in decisions about how they are governed, but we have stipulations that protect the rights of the minority.

[Tarlam!]

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"? :lol:

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.

[The Leaper]

By your own words, you admit democracy, if unchecked, "devolves into the tyranny of the majority." That's the great thing about our republic. It's a democracy in the sense that every citizen has right to participate in decisions about how they are governed, but we have stipulations that protect the rights of the minority.

Insert cheesy but always amusing Schoolhouse Rock "Bill of Rights" here.

[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"? :lol:

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. :lol:

[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.
:D

[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.
:D

[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]

http://www.theartofpolitics.com/graphics/thumbsdown.jpg

[digitaldean]

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

Just like the last Packers - Vikings game :lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

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

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.

[GBRulz]

Tank doesn't bother me anymore than some other posters do. If I don't like their topics or whatever, I simply ignore them. I don't get why people find that so hard to do with Tank. It's not like he is the only one in here who likes to stir the pot on things.

I didn't vote in this poll, but my thought is, if someone warrants something to get banned, then do it for good or don't do it at all.

[motife]

I'm laissez faire in politics, socio/culturally, and with Anti Polar Bear, (although I think he could be called Bi-Polar Bear.)

Cant' some place be found for him? Like let him write a column?

[AtlPackFan]

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

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

From Mad's original Post: "To date there have only been 2 members banned from PackerRats."

I thought Mazzin was the 2nd. Guess I was wrong. :oops: [/quote] Sorry Mazzin.

[Charles Woodson]

Tank doesn't bother me anymore than some other posters do. If I don't like their topics or whatever, I simply ignore them. I don't get why people find that so hard to do with Tank. It's not like he is the only one in here who likes to stir the pot on things.

I didn't vote in this poll, but my thought is, if someone warrants something to get banned, then do it for good or don't do it at all.

But its not as easy as simply ignoring, i mean its not just the topics he creates that he posts in, he also does it in other threads that actually were good until he got their

[MadtownPacker]

For the record Tank is technically banned already. This is just a way to decide if he should be gone for good like GBRulz said. His thread talking about mods had nothing to do with this. Maintain the quality of the forum is what it is about. Everyone has a right to their opinion.

For those that are newer or dont know, other than trying to change the revealing personal info rule other rules can be proposed at PackersRats but a poll has to be ran and the decision of the majority is what goes.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Cool. The newest registered user is Îïòèìèçàöèÿ ñàéòîâ Íåîáõî.

Kind of ironic how we've had a flood of new posters today, and they're all from foreign countries.
:D


Îïòèìèçàöèÿ ñàéòîâ Íåîáõî Îïòèìèçàöèÿ ñàéòîâ. Íåîáõîäèìîñòü 21 May 2008 0
jhghhjyrrr Poland 21 May 2008 0
Zloydadniak Sweden 21 May 2008 0
HORRURORP Belgium 21 May 2008 0
Angie USA 21 May 2008 0
befopoyda 21 May 2008 0
onereevor Brazil 21 May 2008 0
ThahtextTrusa Pakistan 21 May 2008 0
HutAstose Portugal 21 May 2008 0
tierDaclert The Bahamas 21 May 2008 0
Silmincichmaxs Cape Verde 21 May 2008 0
anommopay Croatia 21 May 2008 0
jhghhjyrr Poland 21 May 2008 0
ElolaVinaplep Tanzania 21 May 2008 0

[texaspackerbacker]

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.

VERY very seldom I agree with Hoosier, but in this case, yes. There's a legalese word for this that I can't remember that is specifically unConstitutional.

Harvey, are you implying some or all of those are actually Tank?

[Lurker64]

Cool. The newest registered user is Îïòèìèçàöèÿ ñàéòîâ Íåîáõî.

Kind of ironic how we've had a flood of new posters today, and they're all from foreign countries.

I guess there are just Packer fans everywhere!

[Zool]

Cool. The newest registered user is Îïòèìèçàöèÿ ñàéòîâ Íåîáõî.

Kind of ironic how we've had a flood of new posters today, and they're all from foreign countries.

I guess there are just Packer fans everywhere!

I think most of them come from Tanks house.

[texaspackerbacker]

BILL OF ATTAINDER, that's what it is. Article One Section 10 of the Constitution--but then, I guess the Packerrats Forum isn't Congress.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Harvey, are you implying some or all of those are actually Tank?

Let's see. We had one poster sign up in the previous 6 days. Then, today we get 14 new users and they have weird names and are all from foreign countries. What do you think happened?

[Badgerinmaine]

I'd voted "no" before I read the whole thread, based on my feeling that I'm willing to put up with his silliness in the name of letting people speak their minds...I'm sure most of us annoy someone here now and again...but reading about the efforts to scam the site with multiple account names to cover his tracks...that's not okay and would push me to the other side. If I could go back, I'd vote yes.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Harvey, are you implying some or all of those are actually Tank?

Let's see. We had one poster sign up in the previous 6 days. Then, today we get 14 new users and they have weird names and are all from foreign countries. What do you think happened?

Since I am not yet banned, I'll defend myself. :)

Check their ips, madtownpoker. It aint me. Is some1 setting me up? I dont care.

I actually think this thread is funny. Is there a better way to go out than with all this attention?

Well, if this is my last post, I just wanna thank all those who voted "no."

Good bye, Rataquille!!! :)

[Badgerinmaine]

BILL OF ATTAINDER, that's what it is. Article One Section 10 of the Constitution--but then, I guess the Packerrats Forum isn't Congress.
No, we're usually more civil than them. 8-)

I'm not sure Bills of Attainder is quite what you're looking for, Tex--those are where government prevents a trial by having the legislature just vote that someone's guilty of a crime. I think what you and Hoosier are looking for is closer to Ex Post Facto law, which is next door in Article I, Section IX, which is also banned by the US Constitution in government. This is where something that was legal when done is made retroactively illegal and punished. I thought Hoosier's argument was something like "Unless it was clear there was a rule he was breaking at the time he did things, it's not fair to nail it for him now".

[texaspackerbacker]

Harvey, are you implying some or all of those are actually Tank?

Let's see. We had one poster sign up in the previous 6 days. Then, today we get 14 new users and they have weird names and are all from foreign countries. What do you think happened?

I see your point. However, he's only got ten no votes, and one of those was mine--along with several others who talked like they voted no.

If he wasn't gonna stuff the ballot box, why else do something so obviously inflammatory? I find myself acting like his defense attorney. REASONABLE DOUBT!

[GrnBay007]

Let's see. We had one poster sign up in the previous 6 days. Then, today we get 14 new users and they have weird names and are all from foreign countries. What do you think happened?

Highly doubtful any of those are Tank. This site sometimes gets 30-40 spam accounts a day. We sort through and activate those that are legit. You should see some of the perverted spam accounts that try to get on the site...ick!

[twoseven]

I am not voting in regards to APB, but I will echo Bretsky's post..

I left JSO to get away from juvenille bullshit, have never looked back. I love this place. I don't socialize with a ton of people outside of my workplaces, so this place really becomes an outlet of sorts for shooting the breeze with good people. I ignore what most are probably sick of concerning APB, but if the quality of this place drops because of anyone and it goes un-dealt with and a nice quasi-socialization hangout turns downward ala JSO..well, I vote NO on that scenario.

[twoseven]

Let's see. We had one poster sign up in the previous 6 days. Then, today we get 14 new users and they have weird names and are all from foreign countries. What do you think happened?

Highly doubtful any of those are Tank. This site sometimes gets 30-40 spam accounts a day. We sort through and activate those we feel are legit. You should see some of the perverted spam accounts that try to get on the site...ick!
you can wipe the drool from your mouth anytime...we all know that sorting through that smut is the highlight of your day..outside of the jello wrestling girl-on-girl daydreams while you count the days til' Prison Break resumes... :D

[sheepshead]

I voted no. He's opinionated, but so am I. I can think of others that are much more hate-filled and you have to wonder how in the world you have anything in common with such a moron. If tanks been warned several times and he hasnt changed his ways-well maybe it's time.

[GrnBay007]

If tanks been warned several times and he hasnt changed his ways-well maybe it's time.

several is putting it mildly.

[GrnBay007]

we all know that sorting through that smut is the highlight of your day.

Quiet about that stuff!!! Mad might pull me off my job. :twisted:

:wink:

[Kiwon]

Cool. The newest registered user is Îïòèìèçàöèÿ ñàéòîâ Íåîáõî.

Kind of ironic how we've had a flood of new posters today, and they're all from foreign countries.
:D


Îïòèìèçàöèÿ ñàéòîâ Íåîáõî Îïòèìèçàöèÿ ñàéòîâ. Íåîáõîäèìîñòü 21 May 2008 0
jhghhjyrrr Poland 21 May 2008 0
Zloydadniak Sweden 21 May 2008 0
HORRURORP Belgium 21 May 2008 0
Angie USA 21 May 2008 0
befopoyda 21 May 2008 0
onereevor Brazil 21 May 2008 0
ThahtextTrusa Pakistan 21 May 2008 0
HutAstose Portugal 21 May 2008 0
tierDaclert The Bahamas 21 May 2008 0
Silmincichmaxs Cape Verde 21 May 2008 0
anommopay Croatia 21 May 2008 0
jhghhjyrr Poland 21 May 2008 0
ElolaVinaplep Tanzania 21 May 2008 0

Yeah, the Packers are really big in Tanzania. I've been there a couple of times.

Hmm...ElolaVinaplep..... I think he was my tour guide.

Nice touch! :D :D :D

[Bretsky]

Let's see. We had one poster sign up in the previous 6 days. Then, today we get 14 new users and they have weird names and are all from foreign countries. What do you think happened?

Highly doubtful any of those are Tank. This site sometimes gets 30-40 spam accounts a day. We sort through and activate those we feel are legit. You should see some of the perverted spam accounts that try to get on the site...ick!
you can wipe the drool from your mouth anytime...we all know that sorting through that smut is the highlight of your day..outside of the jello wrestling girl-on-girl daydreams while you count the days til' Prison Break resumes... :D


Don't forget about all her gal to gal body shots and the mud wrestling that leads to showers as well

I didn't realize mods worked that hard anyways; I just wait til I see somebody I recognize from another site and activate them Glad to see somebody is getting rid of the spam ones as well :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Harvey, are you implying some or all of those are actually Tank?

Let's see. We had one poster sign up in the previous 6 days. Then, today we get 14 new users and they have weird names and are all from foreign countries. What do you think happened?

I see your point. However, he's only got ten no votes, and one of those was mine--along with several others who talked like they voted no.

If he wasn't gonna stuff the ballot box, why else do something so obviously inflammatory? I find myself acting like his defense attorney. REASONABLE DOUBT!

Tank has been declared an enemy combantant. Therefore he holds no rights. We can hold him in detention for as long as we wish.

Can we risk going forward with tank? I say no. What is the loss of a civil liberty when compared with Madtown saving us from attacks?

[woodbuck27]

Good grief here we go again.Same fella same deal. I like him too.

That aside.If a person ever rases enough Cain to get banned fr. a site? That person should be grateful to get the ban lifted and act in accordance wth proper manners. Go to school. In this case there has been more than one reprieve.

If that person doesn't respect his her privalege and respect of others and violates again. Then this process of the vote should be respected.This isn't about Mad Vs anyone but about the health and enjoyment of our forum.

I do think that any ban should be treated as a temporary action unless the privacy of any member here is compromsed. This isn't the case here but rather a case of repeated annoyances to members.

The vote will be the response of the forum not Mad.

Tell him to simply cut out the cursing and duplication of accounts . The rest of it is free speech.

I voted no.

woodbuck27

[packers11]

just shove him in the rat trap for a week or two... that will do...

[Carolina_Packer]

I voted no. Not because I like what he says, but because it's a free country and we have free speech. I say if you don't like what he says, just ignore his comments. When posters have an adverse reaction to what he says, I think it encourages/emboldens him more. Ignoring him would probably piss him off, but he'd still be allowed to post and we'd still have free speech.

[gbpackfan]

I voted no. Not because I like what he says, but because it's a free country and we have free speech. I say if you don't like what he says, just ignore his comments. When posters have an adverse reaction to what he says, I think it encourages/emboldens him more. Ignoring him would probably piss him off, but he'd still be allowed to post and we'd still have free speech.


Free country? Free speech? Ha ha ha ha. That's a good one. Our government makes laws everyday that restrict our freedoms. Freedom of speech is a nice slogan, but it isn't a reality. Yeah, we have more freedoms then most, but we still have a lot of restrictions. Whether that's good or bad, I'll leave you to your own opinion. I'm not trying to start a debate here, I am just pointing out the reality of the situation. Next time your in a crowded theater, yell "fire!" See how the cops react to your freedom of speech.

As for this situation, freedom of speech means nothing. This is a private website. Mad has the freedom to ban anyone he wants. If you don't like it, move on and make your own website.

Who is fighting for our "rights?" Why can't packerrats be free of moronic posters? Why do we all have to suffer in order to protect one person's right to "freedom of speech?"

[BallHawk]

Can we stop the free speech and free country BS, please? This is an internet forum, not a courthouse. Mad can do whatever the hell he want. He could run this place like a monarchy but he doesn't. Oh well, it's his place he can do whatever.

[Scott Campbell]

Let's see. We had one poster sign up in the previous 6 days. Then, today we get 14 new users and they have weird names and are all from foreign countries. What do you think happened?

Highly doubtful any of those are Tank. This site sometimes gets 30-40 spam accounts a day. We sort through and activate those that are legit. You should see some of the perverted spam accounts that try to get on the site...ick!


Think B has anything to do with those?

:lol:

[Scott Campbell]

RIP APB.

[Bretsky]

Let's see. We had one poster sign up in the previous 6 days. Then, today we get 14 new users and they have weird names and are all from foreign countries. What do you think happened?

Highly doubtful any of those are Tank. This site sometimes gets 30-40 spam accounts a day. We sort through and activate those that are legit. You should see some of the perverted spam accounts that try to get on the site...ick!


Think B has anything to do with those?

:lol:

I resemble that remark......although........if Mad would set me up with a packerrat email account.........more spam might come :lol:

[texaspackerbacker]

What Carolina said is true. Madtown can do whatever he pleases--no freedom of speech, no due process about it--the Golden Rule--Mad has the Gold, Mad makes the rules--not democracy. He can carry out the will of the majority or choose to ignore it.

The question I would ask is, what harm did Tank really do? That's mostly not just a rhetorical question, as there apparently was a lot of history before I was here. I've heard bits and pieces, but nothing substantial.

Unless there is a lot more to his bad deeds than I've heard of, I hope restraint is used in dealing with the guy.

[CaliforniaCheez]

He's on the way.

If gone for a month or two of this off season is no big deal as there is nothing going on and he won't be tempted.

He will be distracted once training camp is started. Hopefully.

[Merlin]

Meh, I voted no...for now. I do think he needs to tone it down and use at least some resemblance of etiquette. Everyone in here has blown their wad a time or two before. Anyone who voted "yes" only because they disagree with his opinions doesn't get it and shouldn't be allowed to vote for anything, ever.

I guess I find it rather shocking that we are talking about banning someone because they use strong language yet those who use hate speech because they feel threatened by or disagree with someone on a message board get a free pass. I would rather put up with a few f-bombs here and there then I would anyone who speaks out of pure hatred, yet that is allowed.

Now, if the guy is being a total tool and creating bullshit accounts, newk em, fry em, hang em out to dry. Nothing is harder on a database then having it full of shitty, useless data.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I resemble that remark

Congrats on 10,000.

[GrnBay007]

I resemble that remark

Congrats on 10,000.

Yep, congrats B. ...and so much quality info.

You are next Harv!! :D

[MadtownPacker]

This has nothing to do with Tank's language. He is already banned. He got banned because he was making multiple accounts and given repeated warnings about it. This is his last shot at staying because

A: He aint suppose to be here in the first place. Already banned.

B: When given the chance to hang around, AGAIN, he intentionally violates rules that everyone agreed upon. The mods here do what they do because they want whats best for the forum. I can tell you right now they dont get and dont ask for anything in return.

[Zool]

Well thats not 100% true. Mad gives us all shiatsu massages. Sometimes with a happy ending.

[Tarlam!]

I haven't had a Tank sighting in quite a while. Maybe this was simply too much attention. He finally got the fact, that at least 75% of "his" audience hates his posts so much, that they can do without.

Boy, I hope you never run a poll over me!

(P.S. For you newbs, I ran a poll once.... :oops: )

[GrnBay007]

Well thats not 100% true. Mad gives us all shiatsu massages. Sometimes with a happy ending.

Spoiled brat zool!! I've never gotten a massage.

[Zool]

Sorry Mad, I thought you were giving them out to all of us. Im special I guess.

[CaliforniaCheez]

This has nothing to do with Tank's language. He is already banned. He got banned because he was making multiple accounts and given repeated warnings about it. This is his last shot at staying because

A: He aint suppose to be here in the first place. Already banned.

B: When given the chance to hang around, AGAIN, he intentionally violates rules that everyone agreed upon. The mods here do what they do because they want whats best for the forum. I can tell you right now they dont get and dont ask for anything in return.


I didn't know that. There is a guy just looking for trouble and the eventual will happen. It is just a matter of time.

If he is truly Psycho he will use a different IP at the library, the YMCA, homeless shelter, daycare, etc.

Years ago there was a character on the Press Gazette Board like that and they only locked his identity and he had dozens and bragged about how often he got banned. Insulting moderators with obscene and profane posts rapidly increased the ban total.

Change my no vote to a yes with the information in A and B.
It's difficult enough dealing with the spectrum of people in the "normal" range of divergent personalities.

[dissident94]

Don't bann him. I hate banning people. Just don't listen to him

Oh this country is not a democracy. Democracies don't work. Majority rule doesn't work and nver will. That is why we elect people.
The founding father spoke out against democracy.
Its amazing how we throw that word around when we do not have a ture democracy
We have a republic which is a limited democracy

[retailguy]

The mods here do what they do because they want whats best for the forum. I can tell you right now they dont get and dont ask for anything in return.

This isn't entirely true. I get a lot of grief for being a mod.

Every time someone disagrees with me, instead of stating WHY, they just bitch about what a crummy moderator that I am.

Oh yeah, and I get that damn moderator banner too. Whoo hoo!

Is this like Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell"? Is that why Zool is the only one who gets Shiatsu massages? :twisted:

[Zool]

And happy endings.

[twoseven]

What's a Happy Ending? :) Does it have something to do with happy movies?

[retailguy]

What's a Happy Ending? :) Does it have something to do with happy movies?

"Don't ASK, Don't TELL".... :shock: :P

[Bretsky]

Well thats not 100% true. Mad gives us all shiatsu massages. Sometimes with a happy ending.

Spoiled brat zool!! I've never gotten a massage.


I WILL SEND VERONIKA RIGHT OVER TO TAKE CARE OF YOU

[red]

tank isn't a member of this forum

he's the very definition of a troll

i dislike tex every bit as much as tank, but you won't see me saying we should ban him. sure i might find his posts obnoxious, and insane, and not agree with 90% of what he says. but theres one giant difference between tank and tex

tex i firmly believe is posting what he actually believes. tank on the other, will only say what he thinks will piss off the most people. he's out to upset the forum, and turn everyone into an insane lunatic. most of us have witnessed this for many years, on multiple forums.

he has violated rules, been warned, only to step up his trolling and finally get banned. numerous times. only to have him start up a new account, sometimes multiple accounts, and trool away again. until the whole process repeats.

the fact is that he shouldn't even be here, he is and has been banned for awhile. only to find a loophole and get his way back on to the site. mad gave him a chance, but he started up his same old shit that we have seen too many times in the past. mad didn't even have to ask us, or give him another chance. he could have just banned him on the spot

and don't for a second blame the mods. i've been in their shoes before. they sacrifice their own enjoyment on this forum to play babysitter to us and make sure this site stays enjoyable for the vast majority of us. it is no fun to be a mod, no matter what you do, someone will bitch and ruin your day

[Harlan Huckleby]

which one is tank? is that the guy with a mouse avatar that looks like a pussy?

[Deputy Nutz]

The mods on this forum really have very little to do considering we govern ourself pretty good compared to other forums we have been on. I have been in there shoes and I myself didn't have much to do. I didn't like being a mod because it capped my potential in being a professional grade asshole, just ask Harlan.

[Tarlam!]

I WILL SEND VERONIKA RIGHT OVER TO TAKE CARE OF YOU

Well, B, you KNOW you now have MY full attention!

[texaspackerbacker]

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.

I don't believe it. Twice now in the same millenium I read a post by Hoosier and think wow, that's right on target.

In a business, which ultimately, this forum is, the business owner--which I assume from reading all this, MadTown is--has the unfettered power to exclude anybody for any reason.

As Hoosier says, though, it's "setting a dangerous precedent by banning someone for being unpopular".

[HarveyWallbangers]

As Hoosier says, though, it's "setting a dangerous precedent by banning someone for being unpopular".

Not really. This forum has been around for 2 years and Tank is the only one that has been banned.

[MJZiggy]

Tex, the way I see it, we're not talking about banning someone. How can you ban someone who's already banned (with cause)? The question seems to be should we let him back in after the behavior exhibited over the last couple of days or should we enforce the ban already in place?

To my mind this speaks less to the popularity issue as there was a good reason he was banned and not at all to first amendment rights as others have pointed out, but how much of an annoyance are we willing to allow back into our midst?

[Charles Woodson]

Does it really matter that much, I mean if you think about it were giving Tank exactly what he craves... Attention. I mean to have someone debate over you for 7 pages is proabaly his dream.
The people have spoken, via the pole
so shall it be done.

[texaspackerbacker]

If he really just snuck back in, then this is all moot. He was on borrowed time from the git-go.

If you want a parallel, he's like a Mexican who comes in illegally and does NOT keep a low profile. Even those of us who tend to overlook benign illegals have a hard time with that sort of thing.

I, therefore, flip-flop and change my vote to no.

[MadtownPacker]

If he really just snuck back in, then this is all moot. He was on borrowed time from the git-go.

If you want a parallel, he's like a Mexican who comes in illegally and does NOT keep a low profile. Even those of us who tend to overlook benign illegals have a hard time with that sort of thing.

I, therefore, flip-flop and change my vote to no.Tex. I see you are failing to understand how this worked. It is said and done but I dont want you thinking it went down as you believe. Pay attention to Ziggys last post. It explains it all pretty much.

For the record I find the need to compare him to a Mexican a lowblow.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Free Tank !!! !!!!!!!

http://www.scripophily.com/webcart/vigs/thecontinentalcorpvig.jpg

Give me tank or give me death.

[Harlan Huckleby]

failing to understand how this worked. It is said and done but I dont want you thinking it went down as you believe. Pay attention to Ziggys last post .

it worked, it was said and done, it went down.

Shut the fuck up, you stupid forum monkey.

How dare you ban that fine young man just because he got on ziggy's nerves and was a little lippy.

He could have been a corner back for the Badgers if that punk who looks like Obama hadn't taken his scholarship away.

[Bretsky]

Free Tank !!! !!!!!!!

http://www.scripophily.com/webcart/vigs/thecontinentalcorpvig.jpg

Give me tank or give me death.

Now that was kind of funny

To answer your scenario, would you like a lethal injection or another method ?

[the_idle_threat]

bunga bunga

[texaspackerbacker]

If he really just snuck back in, then this is all moot. He was on borrowed time from the git-go.

If you want a parallel, he's like a Mexican who comes in illegally and does NOT keep a low profile. Even those of us who tend to overlook benign illegals have a hard time with that sort of thing.

I, therefore, flip-flop and change my vote to no.Tex. I see you are failing to understand how this worked. It is said and done but I dont want you thinking it went down as you believe. Pay attention to Ziggys last post. It explains it all pretty much.

For the record I find the need to compare him to a Mexican a lowblow.

I mis-typed my last line. I meant to say I changed my vote FROM no to yes. I think I did understand Ziggy's post--that he was already banned, but he found his way back in without permission, was not immediately kicked out again, but now is.

Sorry to bring up the Mexican thing. I say this from the point of view, though, of personally knowing nice pleasant illegals who don't get in trouble and stay--while some others come here, break the law secondarily, and get kicked out.

[mraynrand]

I have to be in favor of banning APB. I detest those who try to maintain two or more identities on a forum. Furthermore, since the Bush administration considers APB an anti-threatened species, Packerrats should feel no obligation to protect him from arbitrary natural selection by Madtown. However, I must say in parting that Dr. John Holmes, M.D., Ph.D. should be allowed to stay and treat what ails us - he makes Dr. Phil look like an intern.

[SkinBasket]

which one is tank? is that the guy with a mouse avatar that looks like a pussy?

You're a fucking pervert. Every time I post, I try to fight the growing pandemic of carpal tunnel syndrome by demonstrating proper hand/mouse placement, and all you see is genitalia. Fucking disgusting.

[Scott Campbell]

Is Tank's banning complete already? With no ceremony???

I propose a "Tank is Trapped in Ted's Closet" thread to commemorate the moment.

[KYPack]

If he really just snuck back in, then this is all moot. He was on borrowed time from the git-go.

If you want a parallel, he's like a Mexican who comes in illegally and does NOT keep a low profile. Even those of us who tend to overlook benign illegals have a hard time with that sort of thing.

I, therefore, flip-flop and change my vote to no.Tex. I see you are failing to understand how this worked. It is said and done but I dont want you thinking it went down as you believe. Pay attention to Ziggys last post. It explains it all pretty much.

For the record I find the need to compare him to a Mexican a lowblow.

I mis-typed my last line. I meant to say I changed my vote FROM no to yes. I think I did understand Ziggy's post--that he was already banned, but he found his way back in without permission, was not immediately kicked out again, but now is.

Sorry to bring up the Mexican thing. I say this from the point of view, though, of personally knowing nice pleasant illegals who don't get in trouble and stay--while some others come here, break the law secondarily, and get kicked out.

So ya got some Mex pals, eh Tex?

They in the back of your pick-up?.

Just back from my annual Spring fling in Western KY.

Missed the Tank banning party, shit!

Yeah, ban him. He's a liar and slightly dangersous. Nothing Mad & the troops can't handle, but a pain in the ass for mods and posters.

Tank, you were wrong about everything you posted. TT, Harrington, Schroeder, etc., etc.

[texaspackerbacker]

Not just pals, KY, in-laws--and grandkids by half.

And they make more Mexican jokes, etc. than anybody.

[KYPack]

OK Tex

Hear about the Mexican fireman who had twins?

Named the first one Jose.

Named the second one Hose B.

(Funnier when said aloud)

[bobblehead]

I vote for a shot in the head, but that is just cuz I put up with his crap on JS for too long.

[MJZiggy]

failing to understand how this worked. It is said and done but I dont want you thinking it went down as you believe. Pay attention to Ziggys last post .

it worked, it was said and done, it went down.

Shut the fuck up, you stupid forum monkey.

How dare you ban that fine young man just because he got on ziggy's nerves and was a little lippy.

He could have been a corner back for the Badgers if that punk who looks like Obama hadn't taken his scholarship away.

Back the truck UP Blue. I had nothing to do with this one, I just merely explained the situation so that those who weren't here for the whole thing could understand it a bit more clearly. Tank got himself into this one.

[the_idle_threat]

I blame Ziggy.


:satan:

[MJZiggy]

Thank you, dear.

[Tarlam!]

:cat: :drma:

[Deputy Nutz]

Is their anyone that doesn't have an issue with Retail and his better than thou attitude?

[retailguy]

Is their anyone that doesn't have an issue with Retail and his better than thou attitude?



Just you Nutz. You're the only one. Me and you and White Wine spritzers...

<sigh>

[Deputy Nutz]

Is their anyone that doesn't have an issue with Retail and his better than thou attitude?



Just you Nutz. You're the only one. Me and you and White Wine spritzers...

<sigh>

Well, only a schmuck would pass up a white wine spritzer.

[Jerry Tagge]

Did Tank get banned? Or does he now only post on Texas A&M forums?

[mraynrand]

Did Tank get banned? Or does he now only post on Texas A&M forums?

I think he blogs at Darren Charles' website. Welcome back Jer - still putting up with FIBs in Chicago?

[Joemailman]

I sorta miss the Ted Is Trapped In The Closet literature.

[MJZiggy]

You've got to be kidding me. There's a lot that went with that literature...

[Tarlam!]

Yeah, but now there is an ignore button, Zig.

[MJZiggy]

Yeah, but now there is an ignore button, Zig.

At which point he just makes another account. That's what he got banned for, remember?

[Tarlam!]

At which point he just makes another account. That's what he got banned for, remember?

Sure, but I have faith that Joe will have him on a short leash.

[Zool]

Sure, but I have faith that Joe will have him on a short leash.

Which Joe? MadtownJoe or Retail Joe?

[mraynrand]

At which point he just makes another account. That's what he got banned for, remember?

Anyone with more than one account should be banned immediately.

[mraynrand]

Anyone with a double post should be banned immediately.

[HowardRoark]

Anyone with a double chin should be banned immediately.

http://media.nola.com/saints_impact/photo/9213817-large.jpg

[MJZiggy]

Anyone with a double chin should be banned immediately.

http://media.nola.com/saints_impact/photo/9213817-large.jpg

You'll lose half the damn forum with that one...

[HowardRoark]

I noticed PIP lurking around here lately......what's going on with her? Is she coming back....did she finally bury the hatchet?

Was it Rand that pissed her off?

[mraynrand]

I noticed PIP lurking around here lately......what's going on with her? Is she coming back....did she finally bury the hatchet?

Was it Rand that pissed her off?

I think you might be seeing posts in old threads - unless you saw her logged in....

Yes I pissed her off - with the truth about Sarah Palin.

Oh, gosh, sure! I betcha all miss me dontcha? That there Mishell Bachman has ya'all thinkin' that she's a smart Sarah Palin, but all betcha don't realize that Tea Party Sarah will be the kingmaker before it's all over!

http://blogs.reuters.com/oddly-enough/files/2010/06/goofy-palin-this-490.jpg

[mraynrand]

http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/03/2008-03-13ABCGMAWright.jpg double post!

[Freak Out]

I bought that tee in Thailand and gave it to her.....lookin good!

[HowardRoark]

I think you might be seeing posts in old threads - unless you saw her logged in....

Yes I pissed her off - with the truth about Sarah Palin.

Oh, gosh, sure! I betcha all miss me dontcha? That there Mishell Bachman has ya'all thinkin' that she's a smart Sarah Palin, but all betcha don't realize that Tea Party Sarah will be the kingmaker before it's all over!


http://blogs.reuters.com/oddly-enough/files/2010/06/goofy-palin-this-490.jpg

Statistics
Total Posts
Total Posts 4,542
Posts Per Day 2.36
General Information
Last Activity 07-02-2011 08:39 PM
Join Date 04-01-2006
Referrals 0

[Freak Out]

What the hell is up with that hat Sarah? Is that a polluted butterfly or a post apocalyptic confederate battle flag?

[Fritz]

She's an asshat but she's hot.

[Deputy Nutz]

I met PIP and what a bitch, she brought her husband, disgusting.

[Freak Out]

Palin...? or Pack in Patland?

[woodbuck27]

I think you might be seeing posts in old threads - unless you saw her logged in....

Yes I pissed her off - with the truth about Sarah Palin.

Oh, gosh, sure! I betcha all miss me dontcha? That there Mishell Bachman has ya'all thinkin' that she's a smart Sarah Palin, but all betcha don't realize that Tea Party Sarah will be the kingmaker before it's all over!

http://blogs.reuters.com/oddly-enough/files/2010/06/goofy-palin-this-490.jpg

Isn't that T-shirt too tight? Shouldn't that be reason for a banning?

Titillation Anxiety.....stressful, in a sensative NFL football forum environment. Too much !??

and .....what about that hat she's wearing? OVER THE TOP.