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

[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.


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. [/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.

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.

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!