To me, part of the problem (at least as I read it) is that there is not agreement around the table that the player is a big enough problem to merit booting him. If everyone felt the same way Greenfield does, I can't imagine the player would still be in the game. Rather, the sense I get is that PC and GF are at the opposite ends of the player continuum, with all of the others around the table falling somewhere in between, not that there is one problem player and everyone else agrees that he's detracting from the game significantly.
If everyone else agreed that we have X people sitting at the table, X-1 of whom are story-driven gamers who make the game more fun and 1 power-driven gamer who makes the game way less fun, it should not be hard to boot the problem player. The fact the situation has gone on so long, through so many issues we've seen on the Board, suggests to me that a significant number of the players at Greenfield's table view Problem Child more positively, or at least less negatively, than Greenfield does.
