Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

NBCSports: Pacers were justified in going after fans

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    NBCSports: Pacers were justified in going after fans

    Pacers were justified in going after fans
    NBA encourages rowdy fans butdoes nothing when it goes too far

    COMMENTARY
    By Michael Ventre
    NBCSports.com contributor
    Updated: 1:19 p.m. ET Nov. 22, 2004


    O.K., so he’s a knucklehead whose actions are almost impossible to defend.

    But I’m going to give it a try anyway.

    A Native American proverb states, “Don’t judge a man unless you’ve walked a mile in his shoes.” Doing so in Artest’s case may result in severe damage to one’s psychological well-being, but it’s necessary in order to explain why the Indiana Pacers’ nutbag had some justification for his offenses in the now-historic melee that earned him a suspension for the rest of the season — which, including time served (Saturday’s loss against Orlando) amounts to 73 games, plus playoffs — from an image-obsessed NBA.


    If you noticed anything amid the flying beer cups and overweight Pistons fans attempting to fight world-class athletes, you should admit that Artest did not start the ruckus, and in fact, sought to remove himself from it.

    Artest fouled Ben Wallace hard in the final minute of the Pacers’ win over the Pistons Friday night, but it was nothing out of the ordinary. Yet Wallace completely overreacted, shoving Artest hard and thereby instigating the drunken dullards in the seats. Wallace admitted he was wrong and even attempted to contact Artest afterward to apologize.

    After the benches emptied and players milled around with typical but harmless post-incident posturing, Artest tried to remove himself from conflict and controversy by lying on the scorer’s table. Everything would have been fine if not for the actions of a few beer-guzzling louts who couldn’t leave well enough alone.

    One of the aforementioned cretins hurled a cup of beer at Artest, causing him to jump off the table and rush into the seats, fists flailing.

    I would have done the exact same thing.

    I’m not proud of it. I don’t think violence is the answer. But again, walking a mile in Artest’s shoes? When all I did was foul someone hard, and Wallace blew his cool, instigating a brouhaha? When I’m trying to stay out of trouble, and someone from the stands assaults me? When the league is doing almost nothing to protect players from unruly fans?

    You’re damn right I go into the stands, regardless of how much it may eventually cost me.

    And if I’m in the shoes of Stephen Jackson, or Jermaine O’Neal, and I see one of my teammates being beaten up? I go up and help.

    Now here’s a key point that should not be ignored.

    The NBA takes a strident and unflinching stance on the issue of players going into the stands. No ifs, ands or buts. It is absolutely inexcusable, it says.

    But David Stern and his minions make it sound as though there is a massive divide between the players on the court and the fans in the seats. In actuality, fans are only a few feet away. And that’s by design.

    The league has a major selling point for the fans’ access to the action, as opposed to the arms-length arrangements in baseball, football and hockey. The clubs sell tickets at exorbitant rates just so beer-swilling jerks can sit close to the players and, at the very least, make vile comments. And at the very worst, inject themselves into the fray.

    I don’t know if concession stands at the Palace of Auburn Hills shut off beer sales after the third quarter, like some venues. But it seems to me that there was no shortage of giant cups of brew in that game's final minute, judging by how much was thrown at players and team personnel.

    The NBA condones the heavy drinking. It requires a skeleton crew of security men at its events. It invites fans to get as close to the action as possible. And then it breaks out the soapbox when the powderkeg goes off.

    Artest and the other players certainly deserve suspensions. But the NBA’s hypocrisy is laughable. Stern and the league are as culpable as anyone.

    Stern has an easy target in Artest, who recently caused an uproar when he cluelessly asked for time off from basketball so he could promote his R&B album. Stern views him as the Latrell Sprewell of the 21st century, someone he can demonize as ‘The Player Who Doesn’t Get It’.

    But Sprewell was different. He attacked then-Warriors coach P.J. Carlesimo after verbal provocation. And after he did, he had plenty of time to calm down. Yet he attacked a second time.

    Artest was physically assaulted. His response was self-defense, even though it may not fit the classic definition.

    To me, self-defense is this: If you attack me, I’m going to attack you back.

    I bring up the Sprewell example because Artest’s suspension is Sprewell-esque. That ban was originally 82 games, but was later pared down to 68 by an arbitrator. So is the league suggesting that what Artest did is worse than what Sprewell did? Or is this just a case of the NBA covering its behind in the interests of polishing an image and keeping the revenue stream flowing?

    The league professes a zero-tolerance policy on players going after fans in the stands. With these penalties — Jackson got 30 games and O’Neal 20 games, among others — it pretends to be doing the right thing.

    Wrong.

    What the league is doing is protecting the cash cow. It’s siding with the buying public against the players. It’s protecting itself against litigation by making believe that the problem is the players, and the problem is being dealt with. Yet by taking that approach, it is giving tacit approval to boorish actions by its customers in the future.

    I’m not saying the NBA is condoning violence by the fans. I’m not suggesting it doesn’t want to see certain fans prosecuted for their actions in that brawl.

    But the unusually heavy suspensions will serve as a smokescreen to obscure the league’s own responsibility here. What do you think are the chances that fans will be seated farther away from the action now on, which would discourage any such future incidents? How likely do you think it is that the league will insist beer sales be severely limited at its arenas, or discontinued altogether? What is the likelihood that security forces will be doubled from now on at all NBA games?

    I have the answer for you: The status quo will remain in effect, because it’s easier to blame a small handful of wealthy, high-profile NBA players who can afford the fines and suspensions than it is to tackle the root causes of the problem.

    This whole situation is embarrassing and appalling. The brawl was ugly, too.

    [edit=229=1101164424][/edit]
    [edit=229=1101164437][/edit]
    [edit=229=1101164438][/edit]
    "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
    -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: NBCSports: Pacers were justifiedin going after fans




    Wow, somebody else who thinks exactly like I do.

    This is a great article
    "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

    ----------------- Reggie Miller

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: NBCSports: Pacers were justified in going after fans

      That's the best, clearest article on this incident yet. That writer is 100% dead-on.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: NBCSports: Pacers were justified in going after fans

        "The NBA condones the heavy drinking. It requires a skeleton crew of security men at its events. It invites fans to get as close to the action as possible. And then it breaks out the soapbox when the powderkeg goes off."

        Good Article....and this quote sums it up.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: NBCSports: Pacers were justified in going after fans

          Basically the way I feel is Stern is saying were desperate enough for your money , you can treat these superstars as you please.

          I guess when you make a above average salary you no longer a human with feelings and should just turn the other cheek when people assault you verbally , with liquids , chairs etc.

          The Prosecutor said the person throwing the beer and hitting Ron with it is "Assault" If someone is Assaulting you your allowed to defend yourself , I don't care what your wage is , it's your life your defending.

          People may not agree with me but if were going to go by laws they the law allows if your being assaulted to defend yourself ..it doesn't say just because your a NBA superstar you should just turn the other cheek.

          I don't care who you are in life and what you do you shouldn't have to take such abuse from the fans , going to a NBA is a privilage and that doesn't give you a all access pass to assault someone in any form.



          Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: NBCSports: Pacers were justified in going after fans

            Check out Bill SImmons article on ESPN page 2.

            He's the first to suggest Ben Wallace needs a MUCH STIFFER PENALTY!! Finally!!!!!!!

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: NBCSports: Pacers were justified in going after fans

              Originally posted by waterjater
              Check out Bill SImmons article on ESPN page 2.

              He's the first to suggest Ben Wallace needs a MUCH STIFFER PENALTY!! Finally!!!!!!!
              Link please

              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: NBCSports: Pacers were justified in going after fans

                Originally posted by blanket
                One of the aforementioned cretins hurled a cup of beer at Artest, causing him to jump off the table and rush into the seats, fists flailing.
                I grow weary of reading this, or some variation of it, in all of the write-ups. Ron didn't "rush into the seats, fist flailing". He didn't punch anybody in the stands. He grabbed the guys face and shoved him backwards. People grabbed both of his arms. While he was being held, he got drenched with a beer, so Jackson pummeled that guy. Also while Ron is being held, the joker that threw the cup punches him in the side of the head. Fred Jones sees this and tries to grab that guy. In response to this, Wallace's overweight brother decides to cheap shot Freddie a few times.

                Whatever happened, Ron didn't have his "fists flailing".........


                PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: NBCSports: Pacers were justified in going after fans

                  Ask and ye shall Recieve

                  http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...cowbell/041122
                  [edit=279=1101167603][/edit]
                  Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

                  Comment

                  Previous template Next
                  Working...
                  X