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

An answer for Fortaz......

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An answer for Fortaz......

    In the Paul Pierce thread he asked me:

    peck....i respect u...and thats why i ask this question....

    when u speak of artest....its like u become someone other than urself....

    u dont speak of opponents players the way you do of artest...in fact u never speak like u do when u discuss artest....its just so, so far out of character for u....

    why?....theres a fine line between love and hate, i know....but its almost like the sheer mention of artest seems to just hit a button and u become some other person....the obvious negative emotion u feel towards him just seems to be so out of character....

    and i cant understand, why...these types of emotions are usually only reserved for very personal relationships....its almost like u react like a woman scorned would....but im assuming thats far from the truth....

    so, again, im curious....why is it so personal with u where ron is concerned versus ur typical take on all other players and issues-a usually fairly unbiased and rational approach....im just very intriqued how a basketball player of any kind can evoke such a dramatic, somewhat irrational response from someone that appears to be just the opposite....

    so again, i ask with all due respect....why?


    I've actually started to answer this three differant times & each time I had to erase for differant reasons. But I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you so I will attempt to hammer this out right now.

    Issue # 1

    A lot & I mean a LOT of my stuff about Artest comes on the heels of one of his fans making excuses for him. Or better yet justifying his actions because they are fans of his.

    Look there is nothing wrong with fan worship, God knows I am an idiot when it comes to Dale Davis (no comments about me being an idiot all of the time from the peanut gallery) but I have always felt that if Dale did something I was ashamed of on the court I would call him out on it. I know a certain someone is about to get on here & berate me for not chastizing Dale for fighting, but I always look at it like this that Dale goes face to face with his man & not hit him from behind or act like he wants to do something he really doesn't want to do.... But that's all besides the point.

    Your new here so I won't bore you with all of the old stuff on here but I will say this. There is a segment on here who thinks just because Ron is a great basketball player he can do no wrong.

    When I see wrong I can't just close my eyes & put my hands over my ears & go "la la la" I have a bad habit of calling it out.

    Some of Ron Artest antics are just wrong. There is no other way to put it.

    Breaking things, cheap shoting players & breaking plays does not mean you are more competative.

    That is the one that gets me almost every time. Ron will do some boneheaded stunt & his fans will chime in with "Ronnie just hates to lose so bad"

    In scholastic sporting events they would call this being a poor sport & in some cases where they actually cared about character they would remove the player from the situation for a time & if he didn't change they would remove him from the team.

    In public life we would call it criminal activity.

    Let me use this as an example & trust me with Ron it's almost always the play I come back to.

    Andre Kirlenko has been toasting him all game & Ron is getting very frustrated with him so since he can't beat him on the court he intentionally steps behind AK47 & hits him in the back of the head as the guy is driving the lane & going up for a basket.

    Now translate that to real life & use this example. You are a widget salesman & you are pretty good at it. Then another widget salesman comes to your area & starts selling about the same as you do & then one day he goes ahead of you in the block & starts selling more. You wait as he is coming out of a house after a sale & you run up & wack him over the back of the head. Do you think you could claim to the Police officer responding that you just hated losing sales so bad that you just couldn't control yourself? I'm guessing it's not gonna fly.

    I'm not trying to compare the two btw, I'm just trying to point out that being competative does not give you an excuse for bad behavior.

    Ok, I've gone off track here. Let me see if I can save some of this.

    A lot of my problem with Ron isn't always Ron. It's fans who under normal circumstances would rebuke a player like him if he were on another team.

    If it's wrong for Rasheed Wallace to do something doesn't mean that if Rasheed Wallace became a Pacer it would make it ok for him to do the same thing. Right & wrong does not change with a uniform color.

    He has a fanatical fan base on here & on the internet in general & sometimes it's like you have assulted the Pope if you make a comment about him that does not portray Ron as either a hero or a victim.

    Ok that takes care of a lot of that, on here anyway, I sometimes try & compensate for the over abundance of praise for him. I'm not just being contrarian for no reason however because I truely am not a fan of his.

    Which bring me to issue # 2.

    There is a segment of us out there that turned against Ron a long time ago. The brawl in the Palace was not a suprise to many of us, it was fullfilment of prophecy that some of us had been saying for a long time.

    (in fairness I will admit that none of us would have ever dreamed possible the amount of damage that he was able to do to the franchise on that night but just weeks before it happened both Jay & myself were saying that he was going to tear the entire franchise down & boy did he ever)

    You see a lot of people are at the stage with Ron now that they say "well let's give him one more chance & if he screws up again I'm done with him". To me, I was at that over a year ago. So last season wasn't a "one more chance issue" it was just "one more thing".

    I'm pretty sure it was two seasons ago that I started getting to the point where I didn't care for him. When he hit AK47 that pretty much disgusted me but didn't put me over the edge, however I was very leary of him from that point on. But when I saw Mel Daniels litterally pushing & shoving him into the locker room after that loss in Boston I knew I was done with him. That was the second time I had seen him go after a fan, the first was at the fieldhouse when he went after our famos blond lady from the front row when he was with the Bulls.

    Ok, again I've gone off-track let me see if I can put this together.

    I was against Ron long before the brawl, in fact I spent the entire last summer doing two things.

    1. B*tching that Brad Miller was traded.
    2. B*tching that Ron Artest was not.

    I guess I just want you to know that because I don't want you to think I'm just pileing on after a bad incident.

    Issue # 3.

    He's a great talent. Hell he may be the best player the Pacers have ever had but, IMO, it doesn't matter how good you are if you & your team mates & coach's cannot get along.

    There is a lot of back story's that are well known on here (I'm not sure if you've heard them yet or not?) about Ron & Jermaine. But there are also story's of Ron & Rick that don't always get mentioned as much as they should.

    Before last season Jermaine made a comment in the Star about having to dedicate more time to Ron to make him feel part of the team (read: babysit Ron) & how differant team members were taking turns with Ron. I'm sorry but the guy brings the team down when it becomes necassary to do that. I don't care who the player is. If it was Jordan or if it was Magic, nobody would be worth the entire team trying to make sure they were happy & content.

    Anytime Ron doesn't get his way he either goes public with his thoughts about how he doesn't know if he wants to play here or not (like he did on two occasions Carlisle first season) or he somehow gets a migraine.

    Well the star fessed up about covering up for Ron during last seasons playoffs when Kravits outed Montieth for this & I'm not sure that isn't why Mark doesn't cover the Pacers on the beat anymore. I'm not saying it is but it wouldn't suprise me either.

    I digress.

    Ron has faked issues before about headaches when he doesn't feel as though the offense goes through him enough.

    Issue # 4

    He's a great player however he is not the single best player to ever play kind of player. Yea, I know this should go under issue # 1 again but I'm gonna put it here.

    Ron Artest can contribute to a title or to a great team, but he is not the end all be all of a team. If we cannot win a title without Ron Artest then there are serious flaws to our team. As has been pointed out by other posters, teams have won titles without Ron Artest being a member of that team.

    Issue # 5

    This is an on the court issue btw, but in tense games when discipline is called for I don't trust him. I don't for a min. beleive he won't break a play & call his own # when the play is clearly called for someone else.

    If a player out plays him I am always afraid how he will react & I don't mean physical either. I'm talking about shooting dumber shots or making worse choices. Take last seasons game 6 vs. the Pistons. Ron just was being abused by Prince yet he kept forcing it. Eventually as the game ran down he totally abandoned the play sets & ran whatever he wanted to.


    Issue # 6

    This one is controversial & I know that there are going to be some who come shouting at me on this one, but I'll say it anyway.

    Ron Artest is a typical bully, IMO.

    Have you ever seen Ron Artest do somthing to somebody who was his own size or someone who would go back at him? If your gonna say Ben Wallace your gonna have to guess again. He had a chance at Big Ben & he chose a differant path.

    Now I don't want this to break down into a whole brawl debate again, I just am pointing out that once again when Ron raised a fist it was over a person who was really smaller than him.

    I will always go back to the Derrik Coleman issue. If Ron ever had justification to get up & take out somebody it was when Coleman litterally knocked out Ron's front teeth. But all he did was hold his mouth.

    However little Quinten Richardson offends him by dunking on him he gets an elbow to the face.

    Yes, yes I know he did the right thing with Ben. I'm not denying that, it's just funny that everytime I see him going after a fan in the stands it is to scare them into what? I guess into being better fans or something.

    Now to wrap this up let me say this.

    By all rights this guy should be my favorite Pacer, hell maybe of all-time. However I just can't get past the crap to apprecaite the talent he has all of the time.

    Now also having said all of that I want it known that I know he will be here next year & so whether I like it or not I have no choice but to root for him to do good.

    Ok, I'm prepared for the flaming I'm about to receive, so have at it.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Re: An answer for Fortaz......

    Originally posted by Peck
    Ok, I'm prepared for the flaming I'm about to receive, so have at it.
    None from me... I have a short attention span. That post is too long for my taste. If it was new material, then maybe. But a brief scan shows it's stuff we've been over again and again and again and again (ad infinitum, ad nauseum).

    Maybe in the morning. I read the conclusion, though, and I can go along with that.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: An answer for Fortaz......

      I read every word...and agreed with every word, exactly as written.
      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: An answer for Fortaz......

        Peck was asked for his opinion. I don't see a reason to make this thread another debate about Ron. Everyone already knows how everyone else feels and thinks.

        If not, you can check out the 87 threads (by last count) already about him.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: An answer for Fortaz......

          im thinking and digesting....i know what some of my initial responses are....but i want to think and ponder a bit....but i appreciate u taking the time to respond....and as i think about it....i now anticipate ur response to my response even more....

          thx again

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: An answer for Fortaz......

            I'll try to keep this about Peck's analysis so it doesn't become Yet Another Artest Thread (and, for the record, I agree with the idea of having a sticky RonRon thread so it doesn't keep getting re-hashed).

            No one should challenge someone else's feelings about a player other than to stand up and say "I disagree and this is why." We feel the way we do about players on a mostly emotional level, and that's why incidents (particularly those with multiple subjective viewpoints) don't affect people the same way. Peck has stated many times how he feels about Ron, and for perfectly justifiable reasons.

            I debated whether or not to post this, because I don't want to disrespect anyone. I decided to post because these observations might add to the overall discussion about posting styles that sometimes bogs down into superficial "look and feel" rather than content.

            1) One issue I sometimes have with Peck's views is that they have tended to be black-and-white, "if ya ain't fer me, yer agin me" kind of things. I have run afoul of this in the past as someone who is generally in favor of Donnie Walsh. If Peck is against a player or action, then anyone who points out points in favor is often lumped in with the opposition, even if they also support the points Peck is making. There is no fence-sitting in Peck's world of the Forums.

            It is difficult to figure out who gets lumped into Ron's "fanatical fan base" - it sometimes seems like anyone who doesn't advocate trading Ron for a stale potato chip and a used jock strap is clearly unwilling to listen to reason.

            Over the years, I've rather gotten used to the fact that I will usually be lumped into the "anti-Peck" camp. That doesn't stop me from respecting him and his posts, and certainly doesn't prevent the occasional apocalyptic moment where we actually agree, but there it is.

            So the point of this observation (if there is one, I guess), is that learning a poster's style will help immensely in understanding what reactions you will receive and whether that person's views are likely to change.


            2) I'm a bit concerned about the "whacking Kirlenko" being compared directly to a salesperson physically assaulting another salesperson.

            It's difficult to explain because there's a reason why the Kirlenko move was a flagrant foul - it is against the rules - but the rule was broken because it was an extreme form of contact that is increasingly becoming part of the game.

            The analogy breaks down because assault on another salesperson isn't part of sales, it's completely outside the game. It's more comparable to Ron going off the court, calling Kirlenko's agent, and convincing him to have Kirlenko demand a salary decrease - in other words, a retaliation that is completely outside the game.

            The interesting part about this issue is that there is a line being drawn between Ron's actions and what might be considered "valid" retaliation on the court. I suspect each person has a different place where this line was drawn - in my younger days, as a Hoosier high school student whose basketball team was miserably bad, I myself reacted favorably to the appearance of our teams ... er ... "enforcer" at times of great stress.

            The other interesting part is that this is another case (of many) where history can continue to be used year after year to justify current opinions. History is a guide but not a guarantee, and the thing about sports history in particular is that fans don't forget it. The draft lottery will always be seen to be rigged by some Indiana fans because of events in 1983 and 1985. Ron could go 5 seasons without a single incident and yet projections of his future actions will always be affected by the brawl. In these kind of discussions, the existence of an incident will be used forever.

            The point here (again, if there is one)? Analogies and historical data need to be in the proper context in order to be effective.



            Again, I have no desire to attack anyone (particularly Peck) personally. This just seemed like a good opportunity to take a posting style and analyze it a little bit, using someone who I hope won't me over it.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: An answer for Fortaz......

              No flames from me either.

              I read the first two paragraphs and did not have to go any further as I am sure it is the same as numerous other posts you have made.

              It is your opinion and I respect that. I do not agree with all of it but that is my opinion.

              I'm looking forward to next season probably more than any season in a long time.

              I would rather be the hammer than the nail

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                Peck, I read your entire post. Good read.


                Not sure if I 've ever mentioned this. I like Ron a a player, I'm a big fan of his. I can't wait until he comes back

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                  Originally posted by BillS
                  I'll try to keep this about Peck's analysis so it doesn't become Yet Another Artest Thread (and, for the record, I agree with the idea of having a sticky RonRon thread so it doesn't keep getting re-hashed).

                  No one should challenge someone else's feelings about a player other than to stand up and say "I disagree and this is why." We feel the way we do about players on a mostly emotional level, and that's why incidents (particularly those with multiple subjective viewpoints) don't affect people the same way. Peck has stated many times how he feels about Ron, and for perfectly justifiable reasons.

                  I debated whether or not to post this, because I don't want to disrespect anyone. I decided to post because these observations might add to the overall discussion about posting styles that sometimes bogs down into superficial "look and feel" rather than content.

                  1) One issue I sometimes have with Peck's views is that they have tended to be black-and-white, "if ya ain't fer me, yer agin me" kind of things. I have run afoul of this in the past as someone who is generally in favor of Donnie Walsh. If Peck is against a player or action, then anyone who points out points in favor is often lumped in with the opposition, even if they also support the points Peck is making. There is no fence-sitting in Peck's world of the Forums.

                  It is difficult to figure out who gets lumped into Ron's "fanatical fan base" - it sometimes seems like anyone who doesn't advocate trading Ron for a stale potato chip and a used jock strap is clearly unwilling to listen to reason.

                  Over the years, I've rather gotten used to the fact that I will usually be lumped into the "anti-Peck" camp. That doesn't stop me from respecting him and his posts, and certainly doesn't prevent the occasional apocalyptic moment where we actually agree, but there it is.

                  So the point of this observation (if there is one, I guess), is that learning a poster's style will help immensely in understanding what reactions you will receive and whether that person's views are likely to change.


                  2) I'm a bit concerned about the "whacking Kirlenko" being compared directly to a salesperson physically assaulting another salesperson.

                  It's difficult to explain because there's a reason why the Kirlenko move was a flagrant foul - it is against the rules - but the rule was broken because it was an extreme form of contact that is increasingly becoming part of the game.

                  The analogy breaks down because assault on another salesperson isn't part of sales, it's completely outside the game. It's more comparable to Ron going off the court, calling Kirlenko's agent, and convincing him to have Kirlenko demand a salary decrease - in other words, a retaliation that is completely outside the game.

                  The interesting part about this issue is that there is a line being drawn between Ron's actions and what might be considered "valid" retaliation on the court. I suspect each person has a different place where this line was drawn - in my younger days, as a Hoosier high school student whose basketball team was miserably bad, I myself reacted favorably to the appearance of our teams ... er ... "enforcer" at times of great stress.

                  The other interesting part is that this is another case (of many) where history can continue to be used year after year to justify current opinions. History is a guide but not a guarantee, and the thing about sports history in particular is that fans don't forget it. The draft lottery will always be seen to be rigged by some Indiana fans because of events in 1983 and 1985. Ron could go 5 seasons without a single incident and yet projections of his future actions will always be affected by the brawl. In these kind of discussions, the existence of an incident will be used forever.

                  The point here (again, if there is one)? Analogies and historical data need to be in the proper context in order to be effective.



                  Again, I have no desire to attack anyone (particularly Peck) personally. This just seemed like a good opportunity to take a posting style and analyze it a little bit, using someone who I hope won't me over it.
                  i think i agree with alot of what u say in this...im finding this thread very very thought provoking and can see it possibly going deeper than normal-which is a good thing in my eyes....

                  i agree with the analogy issue regarding kirilenko and the salemen being a bit off-but i think i understood what he meant and think peck probably knows its not the most accurate and he even alluded to that as well...the fact that he makes the analogy is kinda more to my initial question and really my personal focus and that is why does it seem to be a bit out of character...but im still rereading and digesting and wanna make sure i have my thoughts completely in order before totally responding.....

                  i do know this....my big thing is developing a mindset that seems set in stone and then rationalizing any and every event to validate that mindset while dismissing any forms of thoughts that might cause one to review that position....call it being closeminded or stubborn or whatever....and many are like that in the world....but some are not...and when one who appears to not be that way does appear to be that way on isolated issues-it intriques me and i want to know more....stay tuned

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                    Originally posted by Peck
                    Issue # 6

                    This one is controversial & I know that there are going to be some who come shouting at me on this one, but I'll say it anyway.

                    Ron Artest is a typical bully, IMO.

                    Have you ever seen Ron Artest do somthing to somebody who was his own size or someone who would go back at him? If your gonna say Ben Wallace your gonna have to guess again. He had a chance at Big Ben & he chose a differant path.
                    You know, this one has me thinking. I don't know what to think of it. I have typically thought of Ron as being sparked by apparently random things, but I never thought that they only happen when he can "beat up" the other person. What do others think?
                    "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                      Originally posted by Peck
                      Now translate that to real life & use this example. You are a widget salesman & you are pretty good at it. Then another widget salesman comes to your area & starts selling about the same as you do & then one day he goes ahead of you in the block & starts selling more. You wait as he is coming out of a house after a sale & you run up & wack him over the back of the head.


                      Can we change Ron's nickname to Tonya? Ron Artest is now the Tonya Harding of basketball.
                      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                        Originally posted by RWB
                        Can we change Ron's nickname to Tonya? Ron Artest is now the Tonya Harding of basketball.


                        Ha! ZING!
                        "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                          Issue # 5

                          This is an on the court issue btw, but in tense games when discipline is called for I don't trust him. I don't for a min. beleive he won't break a play & call his own # when the play is clearly called for someone else.

                          If a player out plays him I am always afraid how he will react & I don't mean physical either. I'm talking about shooting dumber shots or making worse choices. Take last seasons game 6 vs. the Pistons. Ron just was being abused by Prince yet he kept forcing it. Eventually as the game ran down he totally abandoned the play sets & ran whatever he wanted to.


                          I re-reading this, I was struck by the similarity to my feelings concerning a certain Point Gaurd we have. But I beleive that may deserve it's own thread at another time.
                          Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                            damn u peck...this might take me forever....i never would insult u by not putting a great deal of time into my thoughts after u obviously spent so much time with yours-which, once again, i appreciate....and really expected....which is why i asked

                            this i do find rather interesting....

                            a blurb from Peck in his initial post in this thread


                            When I see wrong I can't just close my eyes & put my hands over my ears & go "la la la" I have a bad habit of calling it out.
                            a blurb from me in the bonzi thread, and somewhat explaining the basis for this thread...
                            http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...&postcount=125
                            im sorry u had a tough day....we all have them....and i mean that sincerely....i dont do for ron what i wouldnt do for u or pretty much any other human being....with maybe the exception of kstat and harmonica if im having a bad day-if i see someone being bashed PERSONALLY i will usually speak up if they are unable to reply themselves....
                            interesting i think....coincidental? i think not....ironic, somewhat, that we end up discussing this, when we both contend that we do things, regarding the matter at hand, for somewhat the same reasons...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                              Every knows I'm not going to flame you on this topic...

                              Originally posted by Peck
                              Which bring me to issue # 2.
                              There is a segment of us out there that turned against Ron a long time ago. The brawl in the Palace was not a suprise to many of us, it was fullfilment of prophecy that some of us had been saying for a long time.

                              (in fairness I will admit that none of us would have ever dreamed possible the amount of damage that he was able to do to the franchise on that night but just weeks before it happened both Jay & myself were saying that he was going to tear the entire franchise down & boy did he ever)

                              You see a lot of people are at the stage with Ron now that they say "well let's give him one more chance & if he screws up again I'm done with him". To me, I was at that over a year ago. So last season wasn't a "one more chance issue" it was just "one more thing".

                              I'm pretty sure it was two seasons ago that I started getting to the point where I didn't care for him. When he hit AK47 that pretty much disgusted me but didn't put me over the edge, however I was very leary of him from that point on. But when I saw Mel Daniels litterally pushing & shoving him into the locker room after that loss in Boston I knew I was done with him. That was the second time I had seen him go after a fan, the first was at the fieldhouse when he went after our famos blond lady from the front row when he was with the Bulls.

                              Ok, again I've gone off-track let me see if I can put this together.

                              I was against Ron long before the brawl, in fact I spent the entire last summer doing two things.

                              1. B*tching that Brad Miller was traded.
                              2. B*tching that Ron Artest was not.

                              I guess I just want you to know that because I don't want you to think I'm just pileing on after a bad incident.
                              This is clearly where a small, vocal minority of us are. Call us the "prophets" if you want, we see something we totally disagree with and feel responsibility to get the word out. If Peck's "Issue #1" did not exist, there wouldn't be hundreds of threads on here solely devoted to Ron Artest. I don't start threads about him, and most of the other Hateroid drinkers don't start threads on him. Oh, we'll finish them all right, but we're generally not starting the discussion.

                              For our newer posters, here's a thread about Ron in which the very last post was prior to the brawl. And 5.5 of the 7 pages were before training camp.

                              http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ead.php?t=6211

                              And I don't think the link in Peck's first post is any good, so here's the text of the article.

                              http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ead.php?t=7085

                              I can't speak for all the Haterade sippers, but the brawl has very little to do with why I want Ron Artest traded.

                              Issue # 3.

                              He's a great talent. Hell he may be the best player the Pacers have ever had but, IMO, it doesn't matter how good you are if you & your team mates & coach's cannot get along.

                              There is a lot of back story's that are well known on here (I'm not sure if you've heard them yet or not?) about Ron & Jermaine. But there are also story's of Ron & Rick that don't always get mentioned as much as they should.

                              Before last season Jermaine made a comment in the Star about having to dedicate more time to Ron to make him feel part of the team (read: babysit Ron) & how differant team members were taking turns with Ron. I'm sorry but the guy brings the team down when it becomes necassary to do that. I don't care who the player is. If it was Jordan or if it was Magic, nobody would be worth the entire team trying to make sure they were happy & content.

                              Anytime Ron doesn't get his way he either goes public with his thoughts about how he doesn't know if he wants to play here or not (like he did on two occasions Carlisle first season) or he somehow gets a migraine.

                              Well the star fessed up about covering up for Ron during last seasons playoffs when Kravits outed Montieth for this & I'm not sure that isn't why Mark doesn't cover the Pacers on the beat anymore. I'm not saying it is but it wouldn't suprise me either.

                              I digress.

                              Ron has faked issues before about headaches when he doesn't feel as though the offense goes through him enough.
                              And in Chicago, Ron faked injuries to his finger. KC Johnson also does an "Ask the expert" column. I don't read it very often but I was checking it out late in the Tim Floyd era because I like to laugh at the Bulls any time I can.

                              A reader asked KC Johnson when Ron's finger injury would heal. KC's response was, "About the time he and Tim Floyd work out thier differences."

                              This is why I was openly questioning Ron's finger injury right after the all-star game last season, and if you dig around you just might find some bizarre twists to that story, too.
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X