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

[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"?

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"?

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

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

I guess Harlan's taking the day off.

[Patler]

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

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

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

[The Leaper]

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

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

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

[HarveyWallbangers]

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

[The Leaper]

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

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

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

What the hell is bad about that lesson?