A response to FavreChild and others regarding Posting

[Administrator]

I've read the Big Ben thread and also a private PM from FavreChild (answered privately), but wanted to take a moment to address a few things that were said in that thread.

There seems to be several people who have refrained from posting recently. Part of that I'm sure is the offseason. Part of that I am equally sure is related to Favre and the Vikings and their success this season. Some of the remainder is for various reasons, one of which may be FavreChild's reason.


Admin Joe - Comments like Justin Harrell's above...yeah, that's why people don't post here anymore.

Or at least that's why I don't post here.

FavreChild, I don't know you, and from the look of things you had mostly stopped posting long before I came around. I want you to know that I understand your point, and certainly see in Justin Harrell's posting that night what you found objectionable. As I read the thread from front to back Saturday afternoon (after I read your PM), I found myself shaking my head on more than a couple of occasions. After thinking about it yesterday evening and this morning, I decided to edit one of his posts, and then I decided to leave the thread open. Maybe I'll live to regret that, I don't know, but we'll see.

Differing opinions happen on every forum, about almost every issue out there. I know that this forum has lost a number of members over the Favre issue. Sadly, that will probably continue. That's why I keep restricting it to one thread. That works in a limited sort of a way. Keeping it all segregated there means that you have to want to talk about it to venture in there. If I had created a Favre forum, or banned talk of him, I think it would have been worse. A forum would have looked a lot like FYI (a dearth of discussion, just mindless whining and complaining), and not talking about Favre on a Packer forum just wouldn't work. It was the best of a bunch of bad options.

Banning posters and stifling points of view is kind of the same thing. In this case, Justin Harrell has proven for the hundredth time that he is incapable of (and not concerned with) understanding how someone else will view his perspective. I don't think there is anything out there that a woman would take a dimmer view on than rape or an accusation of such. Seeing a perspective that takes a dissmissive viewpoint of rape isn't going to settle well with almost anyone, but honestly there is always someone.

I've banned several people since I've been here. Justin is about the only one who was reinstated and wasn't ultimately banned again. He walks a fine line. In one sense he has been better since he's been back, and in the other, can you really say he's been better when he insults dozens of folks with his "middle ages" viewpoint of crime or potential crime?

At the end of the day, I'll ban someone and never look back when it becomes clear by their actions that what they think is the "only" thing that's important. Partial and Tyrone are two examples of that. At the end of the day, they were going to say what they wanted and didn't care what the results were. I bid them farewell.

I received several comments via PM during their whole meltdowns that "If I didn't take immediate action", then I'd lose that poster. I'd thank people for pointing out the problem, and I'd sometimes try to resolve it, but I never banned anyone under that type of threat, and I never will.

FavreChild, if we've lost you over Justin Harrell, I'm very sad to hear that. I certainly don't want you to leave, and I will miss your contribution. But if I made decisions based on these perspectives, one by one, we'd all be gone. Eventually this forum would be left with one small "power faction" who would "tell us all" what to do. It's pretty clear that no one wants that.

We're going to have differing opinions from time to time. Posters are going to "step into it" as Justin clearly has this time, and several other times. Hopefully most of us learn from it. A few of us won't. I'll bid anyone goodbye when they reach the level of ignoring common sense and etiquette that Partial and Tyrone reached.

I'll leave this thread open for a while, again, perhaps again against my better judgment, to get your thoughts, but I caution each of you to leave the sarcasm at the door, and the personal attacks as well. If you want to "bitch" about a certain poster, use my PM. I read them all and will respond. If you want to tell me why you've stopped posting, I'd love to hear that as well. Too often, someone just wanders away and doesn't tell us the real problem. Most of the time, there is a solution if we know about it and meet in the middle.

[RashanGary]

That thing got way out of hand.

[Scott Campbell]

I'm not sure what I said that was worth deleting.

[Tarlam!]

It's Joe's place, but it was created for a couple of reasons and with some things in mind.

Cencorship was a huge issue. Threads that became offensive were banished to the GC. I think only a couple of threads were deleted outrightly.

I didn't read JH's offensive comments, frankly his posts were just too long for me to be bothered.

I just wonder out loud if dumping the thread in the GC with the cencorship wouldn't have been more in the spirit of Packer Rats.

[Tarlam!]

If I may, just a housekeeping point, Joe. You may want to change the wording in the Forum Rules to accomodate to the new policy. Or, maybe you don't.


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.

[Scott Campbell]

I'll withhold my judgment on censorship until he explains why. I'd prefer to give him the benefit on the doubt.

[Patler]

If posters are banned for having an opinion, even an extremely unpopular opinion, this place will not be worth visiting, let alone posting at.

1. Was Justin abusive toward any other poster in the thread in question? I don't think so, unless I missed it somewhere.

2. Did he sabotage the thread so others could not express opinions, disagree with him or otherwise explore the Roethlisberger issue? Again, no; not that I saw.

3. Did I disagree with much of what he posted about Roethlisberger's culpability, the victims own fault, etc. Absolutely.

4. Should he be banned for having an unpopular opinion? No, not ever; UNLESS he were to violate questions number #1 or #2 and be abusive toward others or ruin threads so a topic can not be explored.


Some seem to think we should not have controversy or disagreements, and if we do someone should be banned. That makes no sense.


...and by the way, Mr. Admin, in my opinion, nothing will kill this place quicker than censoring posts to remove unpopular opinions. I'm not sure what you saw necessary to remove; but I don't recall anything that should have been removed. There were harsh, ill-though-out statements filled with poor judgments, but that alone doesn't mean they should be censored, in my opinion.

But....your board, do as you wish. :)

[Tarlam!]

I'll withhold my judgment on censorship until he explains why. I'd prefer to give him the benefit on the doubt.

I'm not judging anyone. I am merely pointing some things out.

1. It's Joe's house
2. The rules that were in place need to be reviewed.

Totally not my intention to cause any ill feelings. Just trying to contribute to a consistancy.

[Scott Campbell]

Ok, so what exactly did I say that was so awful?

I'm serious.

[Scott Campbell]

I'll withhold my judgment on censorship until he explains why. I'd prefer to give him the benefit on the doubt.

I'm not judging anyone. I am merely pointing some things out.

1. It's Joe's house
2. The rules that were in place need to be reviewed.

Totally not my intention to cause any ill feelings. Just trying to contribute to a consistancy.


In essence I was agreeing with you. On the surface, it didn't pass the smell test for me. But I wanted to give Joe an opportunity to respond before I formulated my opinion.

[Patler]

I'll withhold my judgment on censorship until he explains why. I'd prefer to give him the benefit on the doubt.

I'm not judging anyone. I am merely pointing some things out.

1. It's Joe's house
2. The rules that were in place need to be reviewed.

Totally not my intention to cause any ill feelings. Just trying to contribute to a consistancy.


In essence I was agreeing with you. On the surface, it didn't pass the smell test for me. But I wanted to give Joe an opportunity to respond before I formulated my opinion.

I think it would be good for us all to know what types of things might lead to censorship. A case history will get us there, and the Roethlisberger thread would be a great example.

[Scott Campbell]

I raised a question about consent and the role of alcohol. It seemed to me to be a legit question, and I honestly am not aware of the answer.

For some reason Joe deleted it. I'd love to know why.

[Tarlam!]

I think it would be good for us all to know what types of things might lead to censorship. A case history will get us there, and the Roethlisberger thread would be a great example.

This is what I was getting at. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the thread was just dumped in the GC with a two sentence explaining why.

The fact that Joe has taken out a full page ad to retrieve FC is charming and definitely commendable.

The fact that the offending thread is still on the front page (where non members can access it) with "edited admin" and "thead locked" isn't putting us in a great light, though, is it?

[Patler]

I raised a question about consent and the role of alcohol. It seemed to me to be a legit question, and I honestly am not aware of the answer.

For some reason Joe deleted it. I'd love to know why.

The one about drunken males and sober women????
Was THAT deleted?
Interestingly, that has been a topic in some circles. Can a man be raped? I almost responded, but didn't want to divert even further from the Roethlisberger issue.

[Scott Campbell]

I raised a question about consent and the role of alcohol. It seemed to me to be a legit question, and I honestly am not aware of the answer.

For some reason Joe deleted it. I'd love to know why.

The one about drunken males and sober women????
Was THAT deleted?



Yes.

[Bretsky]

I can certainly see how some of the comments in that thread could be offensive to women and when you are dealing with that topic I say error on the side of caution.
To be honest I read probably the first offensive post and then kind of stopped reading that thread.

Scott, hopefully you've PM'd Joe if yo have a question about whatever it was he deleted.

The Favre issue and lack of respect between the opposing sides IMO is what caused many to leave and some are returning here and there. And plus...it's the offseason.

[Scott Campbell]

I can certainly see how some of the comments in that thread could be offensive to women...........


They could be offensive to anyone - not just women. Rape is an indelicate subject.

[Scott Campbell]

Scott, hopefully you've PM'd Joe if yo have a question about whatever it was he deleted.



Of course I did. Haven't heard back yet.

Though he also could have taken the initiative to explain it via pm it without prompting from me. That'd work fine too.

[Patler]

I can certainly see how some of the comments in that thread could be offensive to women and when you are dealing with that topic I say error on the side of caution.
To be honest I read probably the first offensive post and then kind of stopped reading that thread.

Scott, hopefully you've PM'd Joe if yo have a question about whatever it was he deleted.

The Favre issue and lack of respect between the opposing sides IMO is what caused many to leave and some are returning here and there. And plus...it's the offseason.

Should posts be deleted because someone is offended, without a personal attack on that person? Should a poster be banned for having an extremely unpopular opinion?

[Bretsky]

I can certainly see how some of the comments in that thread could be offensive to women and when you are dealing with that topic I say error on the side of caution.
To be honest I read probably the first offensive post and then kind of stopped reading that thread.

Scott, hopefully you've PM'd Joe if yo have a question about whatever it was he deleted.

The Favre issue and lack of respect between the opposing sides IMO is what caused many to leave and some are returning here and there. And plus...it's the offseason.

Should posts be deleted because someone is offended, without a personal attack on that person? Should a poster be banned for having an extremely unpopular opinion?


The first part might be too controversial for me to answer and honestly most would never agree with my view anyways. When I was a moderator my judgements were always made with the best interest of the forum involved (and many do not agree with that belief) and I respect somebody who makes decision with good intentions involved.

On the second point...well....answer is surely no....or I'd have been banned long ago :lol:

[Tarlam!]

Should posts be deleted because someone is offended, without a personal attack on that person? Should a poster be banned for having an extremely unpopular opinion?

No, No and No.

I think FC and Ziggy beind seriously ticked was probably founded. I didn't read it, so I can only go by their respective reactions.

I find FC outta line for making that comment about her reason for no longer posting here. That's a pretty imaginative statement; how often has rape or the persecution of the "fairer sex" been discussed on this forum?

I think, and I've always been a fan of FC and enjoyed her rare posts, that she took a really cheap shot at JH with that statement. The rebuttle she wrote was her right and I sided with her views.

Also, JH was very quick to respond to her personally. I think he deserves acknowledgement for trying to patch things up. Instead, he is publicly chastized by the admin. Publicly humiliating a poster by telling the community he is on defacto probation is akin to how Germany was governed in 1933.

And, no, I am not drunk.

[Scott Campbell]

I agree T.

Hopefully JH can take comfort in the fact that many in this community came forward in support of his return from exile.

[RashanGary]

I said that the only times I've ever had casual sex was when I was completely wasted and the times I did, I regretted just about every one. Said the girls I slept with were sober (compared to me) and that I would have never slept with them when I was sober (for many reasons).

It's not up to them to protect my well being because I'm drunk, although morally, I think it would be right if they did. If they wanted to have sex with me and I was easy to pursuade becuase I was drunk, it's not cool. They're nasty, selfish people, but I don't care about them. I care about me. I shouldn't get wasted if I don't want my judgement impaired and I should be smart about the people I'm around. In times in my life, I was neither.


I can't delve into others situations without knowing what happened (and we don't know everything with Ben), but in my own situations, the only thing I was a victim of was of being self destructive, naive, stupid, immature and a whole slew of other possible dumb-ass descriptors. Again, I'm not speaking for any other situation or anyone else's because I don't know anyone elses well enough to, but I don't feel sorry for myself or anyone who's done stupid shit like me (male or female). That's not sexist, hateful, hurtful or anything. That's just how I view personal responsibility.

For those who are just flat out victims of a sick rapist, that's truely horrible on a whole other level.

[Administrator]

Should posts be deleted because someone is offended, without a personal attack on that person? Should a poster be banned for having an extremely unpopular opinion?

No. And that isn't why I edited them.

Harrell's photo was in poor taste considering the discussion that went on previously. That's why I blew it away. Scott and Harrell were headed down another discussion that was not likely to end well considering the last one, and, it wasn't football related either so I blew it away and closed the thread. Sometimes you gotta cut your losses and move on.

I didn't quote it, but your post about refraining from posting a comment because it was at best marginally related to Rothlisberger and the situation was spot on. That "thought" wasn't going to happen with others. Initially it looked like maybe that discussion was getting back to football or the fallout from the situation, but that didn't last. So, the purpose of the thread was over at that point.

[RashanGary]

Thanks guys. I haven't said anything bad about the possible victim in Ben's situation or victims of any other situation. Rape, murder, assault are all tragic.

[Scott Campbell]

Fair enough - it's not really a football topic.

I didn't see the JH post that was deleted, but from his other posts I'd say he's evolved 1500 or so years in the last 24 months. I don't agree with much of what he says, but it's hard to argue against the progress he's made.

For those of you who don't see the value in these types of discussions, I'd point to his growth.

Joe, is it safe to assume we could continue the discussion here in the RR?

[falco]

I understand its way too late to change anything, and its their own faults that their gone, but I think this place is much less interesting w/o partial and tyrone.

I'd prefer to see no censorship at all (or only in dire cases, such as LJ) but I do think what admin has done has cleaned this place up.

[RashanGary]

And the boys being boys, comment/picture. . . .


I read a statement from the Boston Area Rape something or other group. . . They sarcastically talked about how the media should just continue their, "boys being boys", why did Ben put himself in this situation, he's just a good ol'boy cover up of a horrible crime.

I thought that picture, like the rape societies sarcastic statements, was a back handed way to show how stupid the, "boys being boys" line is. Looking at Ben in that picture, he looked like a nasty sicko. I thought it would be taken as obvious sarcasm.

I actually think it worked. Anyone who saw that picture and that header, I thought it really brought to light how horrible it must be to be a rape victim of a high profile person. If someone really meant that, I would have been hard on them, so I understand why FC was so upset. I'd hope that now, in hindsight, she's still mad at people that carry that opinion, but realizes mine was just the opposite.

For whatever it's worth, hopefully that explains some of the misunderstanding.

[Scott Campbell]

I understand its way too late to change anything, and its their own faults that their gone, but I think this place is much less interesting w/o partial and tyrone.

I'd prefer to see no censorship at all (or only in dire cases, such as LJ) but I do think what admin has done has cleaned this place up.



There's a fine line between interesting characters and utter chaos. I can see both sides of the argument.

[Administrator]

Thanks guys. I haven't said anything bad about the possible victim in Ben's situation or victims of any other situation. Rape, murder, assault are all tragic.

This isn't a "vendetta" to get you. However, you've got a history with offending folks based on your opinion. Some here have told me that you intentionally do this, others feel you enjoy posting while drunk and as a result don't think about what you're saying. Don't know which, and don't care.

But, this isn't the first time you've posted something like this. Last time I banned you, you were all over the Packer forum posting stuff about Deanna Favre. Whether true or not, it was totally unnecessary. I'd have hoped that at some point you might have the realization that your views regarding male/female issues just are not in the majority, and sometimes it is best to just avoid the topic.

You did backtrack once you understood how offended that FavreChild was. However, you did "dig in" first with the photo and caption, and then with the post related to "packer people", whilst even attacking retailguy. THEN, you apologized. Maybe next time, you won't ramp it up further before you back down. Or, maybe we can all take Patler's advice and refrain from posting if not germane to the topic at hand?

[swede]

I would just add, since the thread was just tangentially about NFL football and had nothing at all to do with Packer football, moving it the the Garbage Can with an explanation as to why and a brief warning would have sufficed, and I think that that should still probably happen. There is very, very little in that thread that was moving a football discussion forward.

"Big Ben in trouble again: What does this mean for the Steelers?" is a football topic.

"Big Ben sexually assaults a young lady and the charges are dropped: Did he get away with rape?" is Romper Room.

I think you do a pretty good job of letting this little blogosphere rock on all by itself, Joe. You let people have their say. You've handled some problems. When a thread crosses a line from one forum to another, move it. I think you have a really good sense for when that is.

I would echo what Tarlam said. Locking it up and letting people visiting the football forum see the car wreck inside is probably counterproductive.

[Administrator]

Joe, is it safe to assume we could continue the discussion here in the RR?

Probably. Most issues I'd say "yes" without question. This one? Well I have some understanding for the viewpoint of our female rats. This one issue is clearly about "power" and control and that control is directed towards them. I think contemplating that these things "could happen TO you" without your consent, and at a time where your judgment might be impaired would be pretty overwhelming.

Keep that in mind with regard to your discussion and don't do it in this thread.

[Administrator]

I would echo what Tarlam said. Locking it up and letting people visiting the football forum see the car wreck inside is probably counterproductive.

Good point Tarlam & Swede. I'll move it.

[Bretsky]

I understand its way too late to change anything, and its their own faults that their gone, but I think this place is much less interesting w/o partial and tyrone.

I'd prefer to see no censorship at all (or only in dire cases, such as LJ) but I do think what admin has done has cleaned this place up.

It's an impossible situation. I think it's safe to figure that posters left due to their sometimes very disrespectful tone. And more would have left.

Also, they were probably impossilbe to manage and from an admin standpoint they had to be a nightmare.

No perfect solution

[Tarlam!]

No. And that isn't why I edited them.

Harrell's photo was in poor taste considering the discussion that went on previously. That's why I blew it away. Scott and Harrell were headed down another discussion that was not likely to end well considering the last one, and, it wasn't football related either so I blew it away and closed the thread. Sometimes you gotta cut your losses and move on.

I didn't quote it, but your post about refraining from posting a comment because it was at best marginally related to Rothlisberger and the situation was spot on. That "thought" wasn't going to happen with others. Initially it looked like maybe that discussion was getting back to football or the fallout from the situation, but that didn't last. So, the purpose of the thread was over at that point.

Thanks for the explaination, but wouldn't it have been prudent to dump it in the GC and avoid cenring anything? Sorry to be a pain in the ass, but I feel I need to be clearer on what you did.

The whole thread had nothing to do with BR the Steelers QB playing football from the first post onwards. It was about BR the alleged rapist. The only football content was where he might find a landing spot and there were maybe five posts on that in 6 odd pages. So, if one were to use your measuring stick, Joe, it shouldn't have lasted as long as it did on the Packers forum.

Packer Rats was initially a democracy. The members voted on how this place was run. In the first few days, on a daily basis. I think it's positve that there are stricter rules in place e.g. The Favre rule has done wonders for the place.

Your administrative conduct in this matter seems to be an appeasment attempt to one poster that took issue with another poster. Further, you cencored posts.

It was mixed into the concrete foundations of this place that that would never happen, provided we use the appropriate forums for the posts we chose to make. Threads were often moved, I think one or two were deleted. Nothing else was cencored.

I value my right to sharing my opinions around here if they are posted within the rules and not personally attacking anyone, even if they might offend some people. I also value reading other people's views, even if they are offensive.

I, for one, would like to know if cencorship of this kind can be expected in future.

[Scott Campbell]

He listened, and then did what was suggested to fix it. Sounds pretty democratic to me. I've got no issue with how it turned out. If he could restore the deleted posts - great. If not, no biggie.

[Administrator]

I understand its way too late to change anything, and its their own faults that their gone, but I think this place is much less interesting w/o partial and tyrone.

I'd prefer to see no censorship at all (or only in dire cases, such as LJ) but I do think what admin has done has cleaned this place up.

You make good points. FWIW, I miss Partial and Tyrone too (in some ways).

Partial dug up all kinds of football stories and posted links. Sometimes those links actually added to the discussion at hand and generated great threads. However, he was like the little kid that was picked on in grade school. He'd just make it worse. Toward the end, he decided he was going to fight back, and that was a train wreck too. He never wrapped his hands around the idea that he helped create his predicament, and as a result, didn't and couldn't get out of it.

Tyrone added to the discussion and is probably quite a bright guy in person. But, he wasn't capable of attacking an idea without attacking a person in the process. Towards the end, he didn't add very much and just went from thread to thread attacking other people and their ideas. That just led to more of these Rothlisberger type threads and a lot of hurt feelings in the process.

What is really unfortunate is that we lost mraynrand & to a lesser extent bobblehead because of losing tyrone. Not sure at all what to do about that, but I'd fix it if I could.

PS - By "lesser extent" I meant that bobblehead comes in occasionally, mraynrand is just gone....

[Scott Campbell]

I said that the only times I've ever had casual sex was when I was completely wasted and the times I did, I regretted just about every one.


What's to regret? Harlan said you were a complete gentleman.

[RashanGary]

I understand, Admin.

I tried to shed some light on the whole, "boys being boys" picture/comment. Hopefully anyone who misunderstood or was offended understands that I meant well with that post. I meant to bring to light the negative, hurtful, enabling attitude that is sometimes carried in these situations. The way FC responded to me, I think she saw it exactly as I hoped people would see it. It was a pretty smart post, probably one of my more helpful, impactful ones because it really showed something important, but I should have found a way to make sure everyone knew my stance on the matter too, so they didn't get mad at me, but rather had empathy for the victims.

[Tarlam!]

He listened, and then did what was suggested to fix it. Sounds pretty democratic to me. I've got no issue with how it turned out. If he could restore the deleted posts - great. If not, no biggie.

Ja, I took too long writing my post and didn't check the thread status before hitting the submit.

Still, I respectfully would like to know if things are a' changin'

[Administrator]

Thanks for the explaination, but wouldn't it have been prudent to dump it in the GC and avoid cenring anything? Sorry to be a pain in the ass, but I feel I need to be clearer on what you did.

The whole thread had nothing to do with BR the Steelers QB playing football from the first post onwards. It was about BR the alleged rapist. The only football content was where he might find a landing spot and there were maybe five posts on that in 6 odd pages. So, if one were to use your measuring stick, Joe, it shouldn't have lasted as long as it did on the Packers forum.

Packer Rats was initially a democracy. The members voted on how this place was run. In the first few days, on a daily basis. I think it's positve that there are stricter rules in place e.g. The Favre rule has done wonders for the place.

Your administrative conduct in this matter seems to be an appeasment attempt to one poster that took issue with another poster. Further, you cencored posts.

It was mixed into the concrete foundations of this place that that would never happen, provided we use the appropriate forums for the posts we chose to make. Threads were often moved, I think one or two were deleted. Nothing else was cencored.

I value my right to sharing my opinions around here if they are posted within the rules and not personally attacking anyone, even if they might offend some people. I also value reading other people's views, even if they are offensive.

I, for one, would like to know if cencorship of this kind can be expected in future.

Well, it's never "clear" what to do in these situations. In hindsight, yeah I probably should have either closed the topic, or dumped it elsewhere, but there is a perspective that I think you're missing. Maybe a female rat will weigh in with her thoughts on this one as she could probably state it better than I.

Will I "censor" posts in the future? Hope not. Probably done it less than 2 dozen times in the year I've owned this place. Moved threads much more often. But, I won't take away the "tool" from my tool belt. You had a good idea about removing the comment from Madtown's rules and I will do that.

As to why I left the thread in the Packer room - First, hadn't read the whole thing until FavreChild pointed it out to me. Second, not much discussion going on right now, and moving it out of the packer room would have been the death of the discussion (In hindsight that's a good thing but up front, it wouldn't have been so clear), and finally it was "tangentally" related to football and current news and I want to have some leeway for that. In the end, the pollyannish hope is that folks will remember that they are in the packer room and temper their comments accordingly, but maybe that isn't realistic at all.

FWIW, I'm glad you're back and hope you'll stick around for a while.

[Administrator]

in hindsight I guess I shouldn't edit a few posts, start a thread in the Romper Room and then leave for an hour to pick up speaker wire and an electrical box at Home Depot.... :oops:

[swede]

What is really unfortunate is that we lost mraynrand & to a lesser extent bobblehead because of losing tyrone.

What good is Batman and Robin without the Joker?

Just a couple of sad old guys in tights.

[Tarlam!]

What good is Batman and Robin without the Joker?

Just a couple of sad old guys in tights.

Swede, you need to get out a bit. The TV show you watch are just re-runs. They have new really cool suits now that are awesome. Check 'em out at your DVD rental.

[Administrator]

I moved the posts relating to the "rape" discussion to a separate thread because I didn't want the "confusion" related to what we were discussing.

Please see this thread if you wish to consider the discussion of what constitutes rape.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=20398

Post here if you wish to comment on posting in general..

[twoseven]

i left this place because it got too predictable. if you posted long enough, certain personalities would find a way to try and get under your skin, some even seem to get off on it. would they do this if face to face with you, or if not hiding behind what is an anonymous persona? i honestly don't think so, at least i hope not. i firmly believe that is what will allow certain posters to type certain things, they can get away with it and do not have to look the other person in the eye as they are insulting or belittling them. there are too many friendly alternatives out there these days that allow you to share with others and avoid these situations. it's not a mystery as to why some left and may never come back. what are they actually getting here that they cannot find elsewhere?

[MJZiggy]

i left this place because it got too predictable. if you posted long enough, certain personalities would find a way to try and get under your skin, some even seem to get off on it. would they do this if face to face with you, or if not hiding behind what is an anonymous persona? i honestly don't think so, at least i hope not. i firmly believe that is what will allow certain posters to type certain things, they can get away with it and do not have to look the other person in the eye as they are insulting or belittling them. there are too many friendly alternatives out there these days that allow you to share with others and avoid these situations. it's not a mystery as to why some left and may never come back. what are they actually getting here that they cannot find elsewhere?

Me. 8-) :mrgreen:

[Guiness]

I'm not sure what I said that was worth deleting.

Wow, that joke almost writes itself.

Maybe Woody can help us out with the answer to that? :P

[Harlan Huckleby]

What is really unfortunate is that we lost mraynrand & to a lesser extent bobblehead because of losing tyrone. The IQ of the fyi room dropped 30 points when tyrone and myaynrand left. now the high points are skinbasket and me calling each other fuckers.

The policy I would like to see would be revoking people's posting privileges in the Packer forum for a period if they are offending too many people. It could be done early and (relatively) often. That way everybody always has a good time with a happy ending over there.

I know I am in the minority on this, but I can't think of a single person that has been banned that didn't contribute something positive here.

When people get threatened with banning, they feel picked-on, treated differently, and they revolt. Once somebody gets on the banning highway, they complete the journey. A lot of the problems have been made worse by deteriorating relationships between the admin and the bad boy, both before and after Mad took a powder. I think excluding from the packer room might lower temperatures, do the job without negative taste & consequences of a complete banning.

[Joemailman]

I agree with Harlan. When I left for most of last year, it was mainly because Ty and Partial were turning so many football threads into bickering sessions between the two of them. I wanted to discuss football, so I went elsewhere for a while. Barring them from the Packer forum for a while might have sent a message to them while keeping everyone here.

[Kiwon]

What is really unfortunate is that we lost mraynrand & to a lesser extent bobblehead because of losing tyrone.

Ah, I liked those guys.

In our next school production I hereby volunteer to play the part of 'Tyrone Bigguns'. Maybe that will bring rand and bobble back.

[twoseven]

i left this place because it got too predictable. if you posted long enough, certain personalities would find a way to try and get under your skin, some even seem to get off on it. would they do this if face to face with you, or if not hiding behind what is an anonymous persona? i honestly don't think so, at least i hope not. i firmly believe that is what will allow certain posters to type certain things, they can get away with it and do not have to look the other person in the eye as they are insulting or belittling them. there are too many friendly alternatives out there these days that allow you to share with others and avoid these situations. it's not a mystery as to why some left and may never come back. what are they actually getting here that they cannot find elsewhere?

Me. 8-) :mrgreen:so, you're no longer on FB?

[Freak Out]

i left this place because it got too predictable. if you posted long enough, certain personalities would find a way to try and get under your skin, some even seem to get off on it. would they do this if face to face with you, or if not hiding behind what is an anonymous persona? i honestly don't think so, at least i hope not. i firmly believe that is what will allow certain posters to type certain things, they can get away with it and do not have to look the other person in the eye as they are insulting or belittling them. there are too many friendly alternatives out there these days that allow you to share with others and avoid these situations. it's not a mystery as to why some left and may never come back. what are they actually getting here that they cannot find elsewhere?

Me. 8-) :mrgreen:

Yep.

Nothing anyone posts here really bothers me.....I come here because I've met some of the posters at Ratbowl 2 and enjoyed their company....and I respect the football knowledge and personalities of some of the posters quite a bit.

Plus there is Skins gay porn.

I don't think anyone should ever get banned unless they breach the personal info rule or the account spamming deal. I agree with HH and think there should be a timeout area (GC) as a form of punishment and if they rant and rage and never change their ways then that's where they can stay.

But it's Joe Admins place and he is free to run it like he wants.

[MJZiggy]

i left this place because it got too predictable. if you posted long enough, certain personalities would find a way to try and get under your skin, some even seem to get off on it. would they do this if face to face with you, or if not hiding behind what is an anonymous persona? i honestly don't think so, at least i hope not. i firmly believe that is what will allow certain posters to type certain things, they can get away with it and do not have to look the other person in the eye as they are insulting or belittling them. there are too many friendly alternatives out there these days that allow you to share with others and avoid these situations. it's not a mystery as to why some left and may never come back. what are they actually getting here that they cannot find elsewhere?

Me. 8-) :mrgreen:so, you're no longer on FB?

My facebook is limited to friends and I only friend the people I know so there are just a couple people who can get me at both. The vast majority cannot get me on FB.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I post a lot less than I used to, but I don't want people to get the wrong idea. I come to the forum and it's basically the same as it always has been. I like that. Real life is just busy and it's the offseason. Plus, I'm just not as interested in studying every draft bio like I used to be. I'll let things play out, read the bios after the Packers pick, and I'll be back on here posting.

[twoseven]

My facebook is limited to friends and I only friend the people I know so there are just a couple people who can get me at both. The vast majority cannot get me on FB.i made my original comment in regards to what people actually get from this place that they can't get from PFT.com and FB as alternatives. i have been using what started as a JSO packer forum/letters to the editor then PR since 95' and a lot has changed in that time that has made these packer forums less interesting versus the alternatives. there are a handful of poster profiles here that i enjoy exchanging banter with, and truth is, if i were actually friends on the other site with all of those posters i wouldn't come here at all. so, your initial comment is spot on, i do come here for the conversation with certain personalities that i am not getting elsewhere, but it's rarely packer talk and it's not nearly as vocal as it is for me at the other place. and if my exodus from this place for what was about a year and a half is any indicator, my meanlingelss convos here are good, but not so good that i can't get by without them. i can only speak for myself, but i wouldn't be shocked if others that have left may feel similar about what PR was for them.

[Gunakor]

While I don't agree with JH's opinion on that topic, I fully support his ability to express it.

On principle, it's not my job to walk on eggshells for anybody else here. I feel obligated to refrain from any personal attacks on other posters, but I feel my obligation as a poster ends there. Beyond that freedom of speech kicks in, and it'll be a cold day in hell before I willingly concede that freedom in favor of a new forum where controversial topics and opinions are banned from discussion simply because some with thin skin would be offended by them.

Attacking or defending Rothlisberger OR his actions to any degree whatsoever does not constitue a personal attack on any poster here. Rothlisberger and the events surrounding him are and were merely the subject of discussion, and thus any comment made specifically about that is fair game IMO. Even if that comment is wrong, even if it might be offensive to some, so long as it isn't a pointed comment at another poster it's not out of line.

I can't find fault in JH for having an opinion and expressing that opinion. The fact that some were offended so badly that they'd leave the forum altogether is much more surprising IMO than the opinion JH expressed. I can't find fault in them either, I mean everybody does what's best for themselves. Just surprising is all, given that this is an online forum where you'd think thicker skin would be mandatory - given the highly controversial topics and posts we see pop up 365 days a year. I'd just hope nobody is coerced into a different posting style simply to appease a few posters who have left or have threatened to leave because they don't agree with what we post.

[gex]

Anyone know where Bigguns and Partial are posting these days? I always enjoyed reading what they posted.

[Deputy Nutz]

Jesus sweet fucking christ this is ridiculous.

I hate every single one of you for ruining one of the truly happy places in my life.

I regret to inform you all that this place sucks the balls of the crabs that crawl around on Skinbasket's nutsack.

[HowardRoark]

Anyone know where Bigguns and Partial are posting these days? I always enjoyed reading what they posted.

I would tell you where Partial posts, but Madtown might yell at me. Could someone show our friend gex how to keep up with Partial's exploits......althogh they are more tame than what he did here.

In order to wet your appetite:


Bike:

9.5ish miles

Weights:

Flat Bench:
2x5 @ 215 - These didn't feel very good. I don't know why. Must have been an off day. Spotter helped me on the 5th rep of 2nd set.

Narrow Grip Bench:
2x5 @ 190 - Form was bad. Didn't go down far enough. Need to hit triceps harder.

Incline Bench:
2x5 @ 185 - These weren't great reps either. But they went up.

Tricep Pushdown:
2x8 @ 120? - Not sure how much stack was, numbers were scratched off but I think it was about 120.

Flat Bench:
2x5 @ 135 - Just to kill some time.

[SkinBasket]

Form was bad. Didn't go down far enough.

This is a common problem for amateurs.

[MJZiggy]

Form was bad. Didn't go down far enough.

This is a common problem for amateurs.

He wouldn't have this problem if he had a trainer...

[Harlan Huckleby]

its good to have Nutz back!

[SkinBasket]

Form was bad. Didn't go down far enough.

This is a common problem for amateurs.

He wouldn't have this problem if he had a trainer...

You'd think his spotter would let him practice with him though. Isn't that what happens in weight rooms? The spirit of collegiality mixed with sweat, testosterone, and a healthy dose of powdered shark ball supplements?

[twoseven]

Form was bad. Didn't go down far enough.

This is a common problem for amateurs.

He wouldn't have this problem if he had a trainer...

You'd think his spotter would let him practice with him though. Isn't that what happens in weight rooms? The spirit of collegiality mixed with sweat, testosterone, and a healthy dose of powdered shark ball supplements?you forgot Yak Loin..good to keep the yang up

[Scott Campbell]

I regret to inform you all that this place sucks the balls of the crabs that crawl around on Skinbasket's nutsack.



So you like what Joe's done with the place - huh?

[CaptainKickass]

Madtown might yell at me.

See now......I am probably one of the few who were highly entertained by Madtowns uncontrollable verbal beat-downs.

He could sure be a douche - but he had the gift that most insult comics would give their left nut for.

[Joemailman]

I'm with ya Captain. Mad had a little Don Rickles and Lewis Black in him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Madtown might yell at me.

See now......I am probably one of the few who were highly entertained by Madtowns uncontrollable verbal beat-downs.

He could sure be a douche - but he had the gift that most insult comics would give their left nut for.

EVerybody except Skinbasket clearly loved Mad. Skinbasket's love was latent.

edit: maybe the people he banned lost that loving feeling

[Scott Campbell]

EVerybody except Skinbasket clearly loved Mad.


I remember your legendary lovers quarrels with Madtown.

[Harlan Huckleby]

i never said he wasn't an idiot

[Deputy Nutz]

Madtown might yell at me.

See now......I am probably one of the few who were highly entertained by Madtowns uncontrollable verbal beat-downs.

He could sure be a douche - but he had the gift that most insult comics would give their left nut for.

EVerybody except Skinbasket clearly loved Mad. Skinbasket's love was latent.

edit: maybe the people he banned lost that loving feeling

I pretty much hate him, I found him a problematic lover.