The Meadow?

[Scott Campbell]

I've thought a little more about this. It's a pretty interesting topic. I think the "delete the post" option is the conventional method of dealing with Snake's post. There are 20 other Packer sites that would do exactly that.

Maybe the question should be - do we really want to be just like 20 other Packer sites?

I think our dysfunction might be the only truly differentiating characteristic of PackerRats. Too much dysfunction is clearly a bad thing, and will drive away posters. The right amount of dysfunction provides some much needed comic relief on the slow news days.

As usual there is no answer that will please everyone, and Madtown will get skewered no matter what he decides.

[Scott Campbell]

A lot of heat and debate has been created about how to encourage and expand PackerRats. I doubt there is much of an audience for this crap in a football forum.

I respectfully disagree with this. I think there are 2 draws to this place:

1) Characters.
2) Content.

You view would seem to place a premium on the content over the characters. I would value them equally.

I think all the posts reminiscing about Partial and Ty are evidence as to the value of the characters.

[mraynrand]

If you have an issue with something say it. I'm alway here.

I will.

The discussion was about what type of posts turn people off. PBmax told you. He's just one guy. That particular post by snake had him calling out another poster "I'd be even more surprised if you didn't threaten a Rat." Either you're going to allow that or not. It's up to you. But generally speaking, you have to have some consistent standards and consistent monitoring. It's your forum and your choice.

Hard to take you serious after all the goodbye threads.

True. one thread was obviously intended to be humorous. If you took it serious that's your problem. The other was ill advised, but honest. If people who I like reading keep leaving, I'm eventually going too.

[mraynrand]

I've thought a little more about this. It's a pretty interesting topic. I think the "delete the post" option is the conventional method of dealing with Snake's post. There are 20 other Packer sites that would do exactly that.

Maybe the question should be - do we really want to be just like 20 other Packer sites?

I think our dysfunction might be the only truly differentiating characteristic of PackerRats. Too much dysfunction is clearly a bad thing, and will drive away posters. The right amount of dysfunction provides some much needed comic relief on the slow news days.

As usual there is no answer that will please everyone, and Madtown will get skewered no matter what he decides.

Pretty much true. But you would think that it can't be terribly hard to have a relatively consistent policy. Either you allow certain things or not. Or, you could just say, Madtown will decide crap depending on what he thinks so deal with it. People are all over the map, so I guess I agree that there is no good solution that will satisfy everyone. I'd be happy with the rules as stated but with an addendum: "repetitive personal attacks (flame wars) will result in ------- by the administrator" - and as I've said before, the bar can be pretty high, that is, you probably don't have to do anything unless people really start complaining. It's a tough road to walk, because a number of people are really sensitive and may just leave without even telling you they've been offended.

OK, now I'm totally bored

[mraynrand]

I respectfully disagree with this. I think there are 2 draws to this place:

1) Characters.
2) Content.

You view would seem to place a premium on the content over the characters. I would value them equally.

I think all the posts reminiscing about Partial and Ty are evidence as to the value of the characters.

If you eliminate the crap PB is talking about, do you eliminate the characters?

[Scott Campbell]

If you eliminate the crap PB is talking about, do you eliminate the characters?

Good question.

[hoosier]

I suspect that "characters" includes train wrecks, and if you eliminate posts like snake's then you're preempting wrecks.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You make an excellent point PB: if you make a clearly offensive post, away it goes. However, that requires the continuous presence of an owner and/or moderator(s) that care and that have common sense and discretion.

There is no common sense and discretion. As we see, everybody has a different idea about what is good sense and discretion.

My preference would be to let Skinbasket's lax standards carry the day. Of course he has been found-out to be a blowhard who wouldn't seize the reigns even if they were offered. And I doubt anybody else is clammering to manage the site. So whatever Madtown says is OK will do.

Mad's limits and tastes are pretty well understood by now. When he doesn't like somebody's behavior, he whacks them on the peepee. Or if the bad boy is especially unpopular, a poll is conducted to trumpet the obvious and ease their exit.

[mraynrand]

There is no common sense and discretion.

I guess I should have expected something this inane from you. Seriously, I expect that people could agree on some basic standard. Yes people have different ideas about the extremes. But it's not about what WE agree on. It's about what the administrator wants to enforce. Have a simple standard and enforce it. My guess is that's just too much work. I have some sympathy, as it seems like a lot of work to supervise the whole thing, but with out a standard, and a willingness to oversee it, what you end up with is chaos.

So whatever Madtown says is OK will do. Mad's limits and tastes are pretty well understood by now.

I'm OK with it too - it's his site. So long as these standards are reasonably conveyed and reasonably enforced, what's to complain about?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I want PBMax and Snake to be sent to the meadow together to learn about each other and work out their differences.

[Scott Campbell]

I want PBMax and Snake to be sent to the meadow together to learn about each other and work out their differences.

Why don't you just watch Nick at Night instead.

[mraynrand]

Oscar, Oscar, Oscar!

[pbmax]

So, essentially, now personal quips about players based on allegations shouldn't be tolerated? I'm not sure what's trolling about someone adding a little humor to their post. Unless there's some context to the first sentence that makes this all somehow more nefarious than it looks.

You're being a total pussy, BTW. Transgressions? Transgressing what? Finely's fine moral character?

It's not like snake graphically described how Finley face fucked some woman and gave her head herpies or talked about how terrible Finley looks in Brandon's avatars.

Let's do the fine tooth items first, then the broader point.

1. Its an insult designed to troll the target, as Finley has been a bone of contention between several posters and Brandon, with both sides making a personal issue of it.
2. Its the worst kind of rumor, uninteresting and recycled. As boring as the one about the local weatherman was recently in the hospital to have an emergency gerbil-ectomy. Or that the local college coach has a piece on the side. Or that Rod Stewart collapsed during a concert ... well, you get the idea.
3. Its an insinuation about murder.
4. Its not funny or enlightening. And its doesn't address the thread at all.

Now someone could differ on those points. So lets get to the larger issues that goes to the debate Campbell and Rand are having.

1. If you tally up the losses, more contributing posters have been lost to the Packer forum because of personal insults/attacks and endless arguing than lack of posting freedom. While this may not be true at all for the RR, FYI or the Garbage Can, this behavior has hurt the Packer forum.

2. If the goal is to grow it again, I think a clear line needs to be drawn there, different than the other forums. Herpes rumors probably draw web traffic as a matter of SEO, but they don't lead to posts about the Packers.

3. Characters might draw in regular users and make PR distinct from other sites. And I like the Characters very much. But insult posts in the Packer forum do not attract the public at large, I think the evidence of posters and posts in the Packer forum is that Characters are limited in their ability to draw new blood. I would go so far as to say the current mini resurgence after the recent "sign up or you can't read" membership drive has benefited from a lack of sniping.

To appreciate the Characters it helps to know The Tank, the Partial and the Lawyerin' Joe. And fewer of us do. We are short Partial, Tank, and Bigguns because their posting arguments consumed so much oxygen that those valuable posters were driving others away. Or some (Nutz and others) tired of the whole situation and left.

You can't have a play if no one is sitting in the seats.

If Mad were to adopt the guidelines above, I would probably have at least 20 posts mocking Bretsky about the criminal Odell Thurman immediately removed. But I am just clever enough to make a football point AND mention Odell Thurman in a post about the draft. And I am smart enough to know Bresky will take it in stride. I think everyone else is at least my equal in this regard.

[Harlan Huckleby]

1. If you tally up the losses, more contributing posters have been lost to the Packer forum because of personal insults/attacks and endless arguing than lack of posting freedom. While this may not be true at all for the RR, FYI or the Garbage Can, this behavior has hurt the Packer forum.

I wonder if this is true. If it is so, I would think the repetitive insulters could be easily identified. I also think the "leave people alone who express through words and action that they don't want to keep it up" ought to be successful guideline.

I can't believe that the sort of comment that Snake made is driving people out of the Packer forum.

[woodbuck27]

When I first met Woody, I thought he was nuts. So what? Why are you continuing to talk about individuals, or bring up old hostilities?

I like Woody a lot because he is TRULY unique and says surprising things.

Don't you see just how sick this man is to still be referring to something.... what...Five years ago? He's got too much estrogen going on there. He needs to strap on something resembling manhood; Dear Lord....what am I imagining there!? That such a thing could ever be possible? NOT a chance.

This is Scott Campbell. Troubled. He imagines himself 'an Outlaw'. What a complete JOKE >>> SC.

His salt...obsession..his pepper hatred / hate mongering. It's very sad.

SC is hardly challenging one on one as that's about as satisfying as 'a hot dog' without the condiments ...like beating on a wee child. He's so fricken' weak...a real waste of time. So I've had him on IGNORE Harlan. That doesn't work when I'm aware of his slanderous manners. Often he's reposted and there is his CRAP. He knows how I feel about him so to post you openly is no shock to SC and for anyone to imagine this is carrying on a flame War!??

That is ridiculous>>>BOGUS !

They miss the point completely. I want DICK ALL with his sick/silly ways...his sick small ego... Scott Campbell's low low self esteem >>>> Scott Campbell. He's pathetic.

Compare us Harlan. Take a look at my contribution to Packerrats Vs Scott Campbell's. Ohh you'll always get the same CRAP. I'm not understood. I cannot express myself.

I'll write RINGS around him in any focused one on one.

I've never 'all my life' been a man misunderstood. if i was I would not have been the leader i've been all my life. My brain Vs Scot Campbell's. He's sad in comparison and I DO NOT enjoy going up one side of him and down the other. To see him CRACK..well you know Harlan. I don't debate nonsence.I don't pick on sickness. I don't waste my precious time. A portion of which I try to contribute to Packerats as a positive member.

Here is the real head scratcher to me. He can absolutely run amuck through this Packer home and write anything he feels at the time. He's admired for that.

If I ever and I mean EVER stand in for me. I'm judged as nasty or abrasive of NOT being nice.

If someone posts me ...as in ...SMH>>> that begs for the proper response.

That poster sets himself up. I will always sense a man's weakness by the tone of his post to me...frustration is easy to determine. The weak act weak. The weak fall easily but NOT Scott Campbell. No 'he's special'.

Try to find a handfull of posts where I begin an attack or ' a Flame War'...SINCE i'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF Packerrats. Find those FIVE posts and good luck with that.

Yet you'll get members here that post that I'm an absolute TYRANT and miss the point. I am merely standing up for myself. That's my Democratic Right and I'm really GOOD at that right.

If I ever exercise that right I'm the bad ass here.That is so unfair.

I DO not flame. I DO STAND UP FOR MYSELF.

I'm a Canadian. We always stand up for ourselves. Look at OUR history. I'm my fathers SON.

Back to your post Harlan.

How can any man be so sick as to have on file that CRAP from back in JSO Forum days? SC is a very troubled man.

That member we know as Scott Campbell goes 'on and on and on >>> ' **like this fella'.

**