The Meadow?

[woodbuck27]

Thanks for your input. That is exactly how it can work and I can show you if you like. Can I borrow SC and Woody? Would they be an example of where the bar should be set? Or we could use the forum complaint system (Report Post = the little triangle with the ! at the bottom of each post) where if I get so many complaints from members the Meadow goes into effect.

This is my suggestion of the reason for and how 'the Meadow' would work.

Hi:

I wish to make a suggestion for how I believe 'the Meadow' will work and why we need this provision at Packerrats.


The Meadow and what goes on in it between 'just two' posters assigned to it to resolve 'whatever'. Must be a place exclusive to those two members 'only' in terms of discussion or input. For those two members to either solve their issue (s) or go on ad nauseum.

I have thought about this for some time. I certainly wouldn't want to ever have to confront another in 'the Meadow'. In my view it's certainly NOT going to be a happy place to be. The Meadow should be a place to 'only' be able to handle gross insult or slander. It's a place at Packerats that resembeles 'the LAW' in any democratic environment or process. One that demands the provisions of democrasy as the rights of all members of Packerrats.

The Meadow should NOT be a desirable option for any member in a sensational sence. Noone but the two assigned to ' the Meadow ' can post within the discussion of the two members sent there to get their shit together.

The Meadow is NOT a place for showboating. It's alot like 'purgatory', between 'Heaven and Hell'; really uncomfortable i.e. if your in there with 'yours truly '. It won't be a place to dance.

It's a place to resolve serious issue (s) between ** 'only two' members at a time. If a member has to go there with me I'll be serious. I want back in the forum in good standing. I will deal with that member accordingly.

** That is covered by incorporating a provision for any number 'of Meadow threads'. If that's necessary and NOT anything close to my vision of Packerrats.

I desire Packerrats to be a Green Bay Packer Football Forum primarily, with all present options preserved and that Packerrats presently features to accomodate many.

It is my solemn wish that 'NO MEMBER' here should ever be directed to or called into 'the Meadow'. If either of those conditions arise.There must be an option to avoid any time in 'the Meadow'.

That option is available now and certainly advisable. It 'only' works if BOTH parties accept the option.

That option is the Forum's provision to use the IGNORE Option. This isn't a novel idea and I attest to this. It does work when it's necessary.

I suggest that the owner of Packerrats first offers this option to any two members on 'a must do basis', with 48 hours to agree to it.

If both disagree then it's those two banished to 'the Meadow'. It's 'work your shit out people,' because it is NOT tolerable at Packerrats. This back and forth thing arises too often because one member purposely FLAMES another and this is NOT acceptable Forum conduct. Don't suggest go elsewhere people as your out of line to do so and only contributing to the problem we're trying to solve.

Please... if your post to me isn't constructive don't post me. You know who you are.

The IGNORE Option has limitations unless two members place the other on IGNORE.

Without imposing this option and even if one member places the other on IGNORE.The member that doesn't go on IGNORE may stalk and slam the member that did comply with the owners demand for such action.

The member that fails to comply with that order to place the other on IGNORE has 48 hours to do so and must keep that member on ignore for 90 days and NOT ever post anything on that other members name.

The penalty for ignoring the IGNORE OPTION for 48 hours beyond the demand to do so by the owner. Results in an automatic 30 day suspension from Packerrats. One or the other ignores the demand.It's see ya for 30 days and no provision for appeal. It's ...I'll see you in 31 days and you'll be welcome back to Packerats and good Luck with yourself.

In the Meadow Option hopefully any two members will resolve an issue.That will NOT always be the case. It's entirely possible that one or both members will ignore the other in the Meadow.

In the case when one member makes his/her presence open for discussion with the other condemned member to 'the Meadow'; but the other member ignores the member waiting to resolve for a period of 10 days. That member should receive an automatic additional and full 30 day suspension from Packerrats.

The willing to resolve the issue member awaiting the absent member can return to post in the forum freely after a five (5) days wait from a response from the absent member.

There should be no provision or excuse for being absent from positing in the Meadow except for illness,imprisonment or death....something more serious. (-:

It's intolerable for any member here to be able to ramble through Packerrats 'attacking and flaming and insulting' any member here. The policy at Packerrats must be based in the Democratic principles of Freedom... that all North Americans are accustomed to and should expect.

Noone at Packerats is more important than any other.

Except the owner.

I hope my suggestions make sense. I want to make this perfectly clear. I do not ever plan on being in the Meadow. If I'm ever there the member assigned there with me better have first seriously considered the IGNORE Option.

No one will enjoy me in 'the Meadow'. I promise if I end up in there with anyone here I will NOT be weak. I'll be pissed.


Mad that idea about polling or allowing any other member to influence anything that has arrived at 'the Meadow' defeats the reason for 'the Meadow' and certainly embraces the issue of prejudice, that IMO exists at Packerrats. It's up to the members in the Meadow to use what ever they have to resolve differences and or insult or worse.

To get their act together.

Ohh please. Don't consider Scott Campbell and I as a test case. IMO it's so sad that we have even come to have to consider such.

I'm done with Scott Campbell.


Packerrats !!

My name is Ed. woodbuck27

[mraynrand]

Thanks for your input. That is exactly how it can work and I can show you if you like. Can I borrow SC and Woody? Would they be an example of where the bar should be set? Or we could use the forum complaint system (Report Post = the little triangle with the ! at the bottom of each post) where if I get so many complaints from members the Meadow goes into effect.

I don't think so. Maybe if they had infested mutliple threads, but they were in the Favre thread and one other. It was mostly harmless, and quite frankly entertaining. The pacopete-?? flame war was in every thread. That's the bar - when you get a lot of chatter about annoyance from the serious Packers posters - PBmax, Harv, etc. about a flame war ruining threads, then you pull the trigger.

[mraynrand]

I take issue when a poster harasses somebody who has asked to be left alone.

That's legit, assuming the person who requests to be left alone doesn't continue to take shots at his/her opponent.

[MadtownPacker]

Ok, you asked for input:

I guess the Ignore feature isn't enough to protect some of the overly sensitive cry babies that resort to complaining in the shadows via PM. These pussies need even more adult supervision/protection? Why don't you just tell the gutless cowards to turn in their man cards - permanently.

Completely embarrassing. People shouldn't expect you to be their Mommy. You already gave them an Ignore feature.

Outlaw forum my ass. I'm not going to endorse the pussification of PackerRats.

That's my opinion.

Your pal,

Scott

I appreciate your honesty and this is the stuff we need to discuss but lets not start talking shit about those who dont wish to engage in pissing matches. Is Patler a pussy? Because I believe at one point he got sick of the shitty treatment he was receiving from a few and stopped posting here for a while. He never PMed me about it, he just did what he felt he had to do. Maybe if I had stepped in for a timeout that doesnt happen. I wish I had.

You and others whos voices are the loudest to complain always mention losing members or lack of new ones. I agree with that but you cant have it both ways. If you want good posters you need to make sure they are treated right, no? Does being able to cal this place an outlaw forum merit not having these great posters? We have an area for that, the GC. If that person chooses to engage that is on them. The Packers area shouldnt be yours or Woody boxing ring like you have been using it for lately. Would you not agree with that? A few funny replies is cool, constant badgering in every thread is annoying. I shouldnt have to be either of yours mommy either. I agree that the ignore feature is an option but it doesnt appear to be a good one. Maybe this can be a way to settle differences.

[MadtownPacker]

I don't think so. Maybe if they had infested mutliple threads, but they were in the Favre thread and one other. It was mostly harmless, and quite frankly entertaining. The pacopete-?? flame war was in every thread. That's the bar - when you get a lot of chatter about annoyance from the serious Packers posters - PBmax, Harv, etc. about a flame war ruining threads, then you pull the trigger.

Well it seems to have spread further than that. That Favre thread is not the issue. What you describe though is pretty much how I envision it also.

[MadtownPacker]

That's legit, assuming the person who requests to be left alone doesn't continue to take shots at his/her opponent.

Another excellent point.

[MadtownPacker]

This is my suggestion of the reason for and how 'the Meadow' would work.

Woody, ok let say you have reason to be pissed at SC but what about all the other posters you have been flat out rude lately? If someone even posted a differing opinion on a subject you fired off at them like they where an idiot! You ARE NOT stronger Woody. You are like everyone else, you let your head get hot and sometimes you blow up so get off this high horse cuz you have run the SOB ragged.

You offer some valid suggestions. Clean that damn post up so I can understand it and I will get back to you.

[Scott Campbell]

Woody, ok let say you have reason to be pissed at SC but what about all the other posters you have been flat out rude lately?

Lately????

He's always been "that guy".

We all know that Woody brings everything he gets onto himself. And some of you guys try to tread lightly around him because he's not all there, and you don't want to set off another crazy old man rant. Bunch of enablers. I actually think you do the guy a disservice by not telling him how it really is. The poor guy has no clue how he's really perceived here.

[Cleft Crusty]

True story. About fifteen years ago I considered writing a short story about a metaphoric dysfunctionally depressed society that was centered around a machine that sounded out their day which was created by the town founder as a means of keeping harmony throughout the society. Well, over the decades, "smarter" people kept adding modifications, "improvements," and other important junk, which was actually doing more harm than good. Ignorantly, the town's leaders kept adding mechanisms to correct the negative results of their previous mechanisms, compounding the problem and leading to mass suicides, rapes, domestic abuse, and general mayhem until some person strips the machine down to it's essential function again. I never wrote the story because I couldn't find the proper motive for the protagonist and how Prozac played into the story. Anyway, the point being, for those of you without such an esteemed literary degree as my own: less is often more and the harder you try to "fix" something that was never broken, but rather was being meddled with by well intentioned but totally incompetent gits, the more worthless and unusable it becomes.

Just thought I would share.

The more you overwork the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain!

[woodbuck27]

Woody, ok let say you have reason to be pissed at SC but what about all the other posters you have been flat out rude lately? If someone even posted a differing opinion on a subject you fired off at them like they where an idiot! You ARE NOT stronger Woody. You are like everyone else, you let your head get hot and sometimes you blow up so get off this high horse cuz you have run the SOB ragged.

You offer some valid suggestions. Clean that damn post up so I can understand it and I will get back to you.

I'm NOT sure what's so hard to understand. In any case:

I edited my suggstion for you Mad RE: any considertion of a new place called 'the Meadow' and what youi may consider as constructive in regards to making it work. What any sensable member may option as a means of escaping finding him/herself in 'the Meadow'. Two NOT one guilty of a flame war parties must place 'one another' on IGNORE. Too simple a solution in my experience and opinion.

I removed my last portion. Yes I defend myself if necessary. I'm certainly not a stalker here nor am I anyways close to SC in regards to his extreme pechant for abuse, slander and hatred.

I am heads and shoulders a more positively constructive member here at Packerrats than Scott Campbell has ever been. Scott Campbell is all about mischief and his immaturity and sick ways are not acceptable.

iN OPEN fORUM REQUEST THAT YOU ENSURE THAT Scott Campbell never posts me ever again nor abuses my name from this day forward at Packerats with advice to him of severe penalty.

I came back to my post RE: 'the Meadow' and suggestions that may assist you setting it up and removed 'the little Green fella'.Maybe? that offended you Mad.

I never mean any offense. I feel that 'the body' of that post is well written as best I can; otherwise I'm not sure what to do with ithe post further. I'm 'only' here to assist you and do so positively without harm to anyone. I'm 'only' a member of Packerrats.

You HOLD 'the POWER'.

Again...GOOD LUCK Mad.

[Scott Campbell]

I take issue when a poster harasses somebody who has asked to be left alone. I guess that doesn't sit well with you.

Pfffft.

You have been left alone. Funny how it kinda just happened all by itself - once you quit crying about it and acting like a douchebag.

What you really wanted was to win, by getting your opponent branded as a stalker. And that's Woody's latest angle.

It was lame then, and it's lame now.

[mraynrand]

The Meadow is NOT a place for showboating. It's alot like 'purgatory', between 'Heaven and Hell'; really uncomfortable i.e. if your in there with 'yours truly '. It won't be a place to dance.

What of Lazarus? What of Lazarus??

[Harlan Huckleby]

He's always been "that guy".

Scott, whether what you say is true or not doesn't matter. The subject of your post is a person. You're carrying-on a flame war with somebody.

Apparently you both want to keep it up. I don't know how to deal with that situation to please most of the members. For myself, I just ignore it.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't know how to deal with that situation to please most of the members. For myself, I just ignore it.

Amazingly simple solution.

[Scott Campbell]

You're carrying-on a flame war with somebody.

When Woody is contributing, I leave him alone. When he starts preaching, and treating people as lesser human beings, I tweak his nipples.

I have no issues with Woody when he's not acting like a douchebag.