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.