I voted no. I think he deserves some leeway. It's obvious the dude bleeds green. He's not broken any rules of the board, has he? I would urge him to try and be aware that not every thread is the place to air his grievances on the football coaching side of things. Just my two cents.

Go Bobcats!

I voted no. What I would like to see is other BA posters show the will power to ignore his ad nauseum posts. If we're lucky, that would have the same effect of a ban.

Brooke Albin will eventually move on when/if Timmy wins a few games in Charlotte.

No. But I'd chip in for an ignore button.

SBH- you make me laugh! I have told you many times, I am not related to Coach Albin. However, you are permitted to criticize and berate me when you disagree with the facts I give you. I'm guessing you spread this baloney to your students if you are still in the education business? You continue to bash Coach Albin, who by the way is the most successful football coach in the last 55 years in Athens. Can we say that about Boals? Can we say that about the womens coach who you continue to support? The records speak for themselves. Should you be banned from this board for delivering baloney about how the administration can do no wrong? Is this board a "good ole boys" board where only you and your like minded friends are allowed to participate?

If you aren’t ACTUALLY related to him, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that you haven’t photoshopped yourself into some Albin family photos.

He did the bit in a thread about himself. What a loser.

Another "no" voted for free speech. Heck, I've been advocating to bring Monroe back. Wouldn't head-to-head competition between the two them be fun to watch?

From the Posting Policy published here defining inappropriate posts:

-- "Baiting (responding to relevant post with non-relevant, flame post)"
-- "Any rumor spreading, however implicit, regarding legal issues (where charges have not been filed) or personal lives of athletes or coaches."

Bobcat1996 has posted the same thing -- more or less word for word -- in dozens of threads, whether relevant or not. Seems pretty clear that's 'Baiting.'

He also has publicly accused Julie Cromer of sexism without any basis or support for his stance and stated that she fails to treat her employees with dignity. That feels an awful lot like rumor spreading to me.

At minimum, it's classless and cowardly. Either way, the quality around here would improve if he either 1) were gone or 2) were capable of turning the page on Albin and his feelings about Cromer.

What would improve the quality would be for posters to use their real names.

Depends on whether the AD is a public figure under Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. Though there are signs the current SCOTUS is posed to lessen the bar for the proof of defamation when public figures are involved, it’s always difficult to predict these things. It seems to me that one likely possibility is the narrowing of the category of those covered by Times. At first it was just elected pubic officials, then it got expanded in many subsequent rulings to what some justices, in dissent, thought ridiculous lengths. I remember one dissent that called the current state of affairs “bootstrap” logic. What he meant as that any newsworthy event focusing on a particular person made that person a “public figure” and therefore covered under the Times doctrine that requires proof not only of defamation, per se, but that the person being sued either knew the statements were false or had reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. As of right now, Bobcat1996 is likely protected as a good defense attorney could probably successfully argue that Julie would qualify as a public figure under the current loose definition.

I just put the question of university administrators being covered under Times to my favorite AI Bot, who should not be confused with an actual lawyer (nor should I):

“Yes, university presidents and athletic directors can be considered public figures under the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan standard. This ruling established that public figures, including those in prominent positions within public institutions, must meet a higher burden of proof in defamation cases.
Since university presidents and athletic directors often engage in public discourse, make decisions that affect the university community, and are frequently covered by the media, they are seen as having voluntarily entered the public arena. As a result, if they are defamed, they would need to demonstrate ‘actual malice’ —that the false statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This classification helps protect free speech while balancing the need for accountability for false statements about individuals in positions of authority.”

On this I agree. I know I’ve not been her biggest fan, and I’ve even agreed with a few of Bobcat1996’s statements about her, but I don’t harp on it 24/7. I’m also not paranoid about Tim getting a raw deal, when it’s clear TA acted rashly and is mostly to blame for what transpired at the end of last season. On a related issue, I would not be against a BA rule that would say that your real name had to be listed in your profile.