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

  • #16
    Re: An answer for Fortaz......

    Originally posted by foretaz
    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...

    "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...
    I think there's a big difference between what you two are talking about. See, it's one thing to call someone or something out on an internet forum, and quite another to do so in person, in a real situation. I imagine if Peck were to see Ron in person, he would be quite respectful, if not a little nervous (as evidenced by his reaction to Scot Pollard). In other words, he ain't gonna call Ron out to his face.

    And I can't fathom the situation where I would ever need you to speak up for me. That's simply laughable. Although it must be fun for you to imagine.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: An answer for Fortaz......

      Peck –

      As one of the remaining Artest fans, I’d say that I agree with everything you’ve stated. I like what Artest can bring to a basketball court, and especially what his very diverse skills mean to our team. But, like you, I also despise some of his antics.

      The only issue you point out that I take exception to is #4.

      Issue # 4…

      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.
      [I]

      On the surface, certainly this statement is accurate. I only wish it were that simple. But it’s much more complex than that. Win a title without Artest? Sure, but how long will it take to re-fit the team to compensate his loss? And will the re-fitted team ever experience the window of opportunity that appears to be at hand right now?

      I believe your real point is basically a statement that no one player is more important than the team. And I respect that. But let me purse your words as written.

      GMs fit teams together, much like you and I assemble the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. A little bit of post play here, a couple of decent perimeter shooters there, a decent ball-handler/distributor, a lock-down defender over there. Maybe another guy that throws mean picks out on the floor. The individual pieces are rarely be-all, end-all players (as you would state), but together they do a decent job of compensating for each other’s weaknesses.

      The trouble is that, since each piece of the puzzle is unique in its own right, contributing its own set of skills to the mix, to maintain proper balance among the pieces, you find that you must also exchange some of the other pieces once you exchange the first piece.

      Does this make sense? I’m not saying that the Pacers are the best example of synergy that I’ve ever experienced, but they are “synergistic” none the less.

      It’s pretty obvious the problem that Bird and Walsh face. How can they replace Artest’s man-on and team defensive abilities, his ability to post-up, his physical strength, his competitive edge, his shooting, his… Well you get it. Your remove all that from the lineup in a single player, plug in a new player, and other pieces of the puzzle would most likely have to be exchanged to take up the slack.

      So what should Bird and Walsh do? Begin the retro-fit? Or do they roll the dice until the trade deadline next season to see how things are going, perhaps posturing the Pacers for a title run?

      That’s really a tough decision, isn’t it? You dump Artest, exchange a couple of more pieces and maybe your window of opportunity closes. You keep Artest, he possibly implodes again, and you’re basically dekcuf.

      On the one hand, if they can keep the wheels on Artest’s wagon, Bird and Walsh know “what they have”… a contender. They get rid of Artest and maybe another player or two, and don’t really know for certain how the new pieces will mesh and what the end product will be.

      Which do you consider to be the greater risk? Because, I sure as hell don’t know. I can only go by Larry’s ongoing praise of Artest. But then again, is it genuine or posturing for equal value in a trade? I don’t know.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: An answer for Fortaz......

        Originally posted by Harmonica
        I think there's a big difference between what you two are talking about. See, it's one thing to call someone or something out on an internet forum, and quite another to do so in person, in a real situation. I imagine if Peck were to see Ron in person, he would be quite respectful, if not a little nervous (as evidenced by his reaction to Scot Pollard). In other words, he ain't gonna call Ron out to his face.

        And I can't fathom the situation where I would ever need you to speak up for me. That's simply laughable. Although it must be fun for you to imagine.
        ill assume that because of ur issues with my font, that ur unable to read and comprehend what i write, since its so unprofessional in ur eyes....let me see if i can review for u...though i realize its probably futile because its not in the font and style u deem appropriate...

        i, similar to peck, will come to someones defense if they are being verbally abused or attacked and are not around or available to defend themselves....

        i mentioned if i was having a bad day there might be two exceptions to that....harmonica and kstat....

        based on ur continued snide comments, calculated personal jabs, it seems ur developing a somewhat of a fatal attraction of sorts stalking mentality towards me....which should only further the validity for my refraining to come to ur defense(IF UR NOT AROUND OR UNABLE TO DO SO) if im having a bad day....

        u will forgive me if im not optimistic, at this point, about ur getting it....luckily, for both of us, our lives wont be negatively effected either way...

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: An answer for Fortaz......

          Originally posted by beast23
          On the surface, certainly this statement is accurate. I only wish it were that simple. But it’s much more complex than that. Win a title without Artest? Sure, but how long will it take to re-fit the team to compensate his loss? And will the re-fitted team ever experience the window of opportunity that appears to be at hand right now?

          I believe your real point is basically a statement that no one player is more important than the team. And I respect that. But let me purse your words as written.

          GMs fit teams together, much like you and I assemble the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. A little bit of post play here, a couple of decent perimeter shooters there, a decent ball-handler/distributor, a lock-down defender over there. Maybe another guy that throws mean picks out on the floor. The individual pieces are rarely be-all, end-all players (as you would state), but together they do a decent job of compensating for each other’s weaknesses.

          The trouble is that, since each piece of the puzzle is unique in its own right, contributing its own set of skills to the mix, to maintain proper balance among the pieces, you find that you must also exchange some of the other pieces once you exchange the first piece.

          Does this make sense? I’m not saying that the Pacers are the best example of synergy that I’ve ever experienced, but they are “synergistic” none the less.

          It’s pretty obvious the problem that Bird and Walsh face. How can they replace Artest’s man-on and team defensive abilities, his ability to post-up, his physical strength, his competitive edge, his shooting, his… Well you get it. Your remove all that from the lineup in a single player, plug in a new player, and other pieces of the puzzle would most likely have to be exchanged to take up the slack.

          So what should Bird and Walsh do? Begin the retro-fit? Or do they roll the dice until the trade deadline next season to see how things are going, perhaps posturing the Pacers for a title run?

          That’s really a tough decision, isn’t it? You dump Artest, exchange a couple of more pieces and maybe your window of opportunity closes. You keep Artest, he possibly implodes again, and you’re basically dekcuf.

          On the one hand, if they can keep the wheels on Artest’s wagon, Bird and Walsh know “what they have”… a contender. They get rid of Artest and maybe another player or two, and don’t really know for certain how the new pieces will mesh and what the end product will be.

          Which do you consider to be the greater risk? Because, I sure as hell don’t know. I can only go by Larry’s ongoing praise of Artest. But then again, is it genuine or posturing for equal value in a trade? I don’t know.


          That is just a great, great post. I think we can all agree that the Pacers are faced with a tough decision, and when you consider that Artest trade value is so low, anyone even the biggest Artest "hater" must admit that it is at the very least a tough decision.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: An answer for Fortaz......

            Originally posted by foretaz
            ill assume that because of ur issues with my font, that ur unable to read and comprehend what i write, since its so unprofessional in ur eyes....let me see if i can review for u...though i realize its probably futile because its not in the font and style u deem appropriate...

            i, similar to peck, will come to someones defense if they are being verbally abused or attacked and are not around or available to defend themselves....

            i mentioned if i was having a bad day there might be two exceptions to that....harmonica and kstat....

            based on ur continued snide comments, calculated personal jabs, it seems ur developing a somewhat of a fatal attraction of sorts stalking mentality towards me....which should only further the validity for my refraining to come to ur defense(IF UR NOT AROUND OR UNABLE TO DO SO) if im having a bad day....

            u will forgive me if im not optimistic, at this point, about ur getting it....luckily, for both of us, our lives wont be negatively effected either way...
            You poor misguided soul, you chose to use a blurb that included my (and Kstat's) name and I'm the one developing a somewhat of a fatal attraction of sorts? You need need help. Leave me out of your discussions and we'll be fine.

            EDIT: Oh, and Peck was referring to not turning a blind eye (on here) to Ron's problems. You were referring to coming to someone's defense. Two entirely different things, chum.

            For those who don't want to wade through what Peck said:

            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: An answer for Fortaz......

              I can't wait to see Ronnie play this year.
              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                Originally posted by Vicious Tyrant
                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?
                Originally posted by Peck
                There is a segment on here who thinks just because Ron is a great basketball player he can do no wrong.
                Originally posted by Peck
                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.
                Why is this surprising? It's part of our Indiana basketball heritage. In fact it's been going on for at least 20 years. When it comes to basketball in OUR state, integrity and character often take a back seat as the end clearly justifies the means.

                Well, the jury is still out on whether the general is a human being.
                Yeah, but you can't argue with his results
                .
                Don't thank me, I'll kill ya.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                  First of all, Peck, well written and I agree with you and those points I didn't agree with you, I see your point. I think the bottom line for most of us is we love the Pacers. We want them to typify our morals and standards. Which is not incorrect. For those of us who live here, we ARE Hicks! We take things slow. We don't conform as quickly to hype as other large cities do (I know I'm stereotyping). So, it's not uncommon for those of us who live our lives differently to say that we like the "thuggery"-for lack of a better word right now-to not have a place on this team. But while Artest is a New Yorker who has a lot of pent up aggression (admittedly so by him) and has trouble controlling his temper, he is doing the right things by living here in the area, getting to know the fans, what Indiana basketball is about and for gosh sakes, he's only 25 years old. Heck, when I was 25, I was managing a liquor store in Indianapolis, making $325 a week working 70 hours a week. And I went out drinking every night and partying. He's 25 years old, making $6 million a year, and that's a lot to handle (especially when you aren't getting that when you're suspended). So, I think we'll see a different, more Hoosier Artest in the years to come and with Peck being a Pacers fan and choosing-by the way I read his post-to embrace him as a member of the Pacers, I think that is the way to go for those anti-Artest people.

                  But, with that being said, I don't agree with what has happened with what Artest has done, he helped make my dream Pacers trip less enjoyable a couple of years ago (I had floor seats for the Knicks game and then floor seats for the Wizards game the next night when he was suspended for breaking the equipment at MSG-we lost both games-Jordan went for 46 (I think) in a double OT loss in D.C..), helped ruin the dream season of this year, caused riffs in the locker room, etc. But I am looking toward the future. And bottom line is we want to win, Artest wants to win, and the Pacers want to win.

                  So, let's give this young man some time to grow up. Actually, I will chalk up what he has done in the past to growing up time and now he has to be grown up or all bets are off. He has a long career ahead of him, hopefully a great one, and if so, hopefully with the Pacers. It's about time we caught a break or two.

                  Sorry about being so long winded. I really wanted to say what I said. Thanks for reading.
                  Two=the number 2
                  Too=means "also"
                  To=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (two, too) do not apply.

                  Their=shows ownership-'it is their house'
                  They're=they are
                  There=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (their, they're) do not apply

                  Sorry but it bugs me when these are used incorrectly when I read posts on PacersDigest.com.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                    Originally posted by Harmonica
                    You poor misguided soul, you chose to use a blurb that included my (and Kstat's) name and I'm the one developing a somewhat of a fatal attraction of sorts? You need need help. Leave me out of your discussions and we'll be fine.
                    you need a history lesson....almost from the beginning of my coming here u have interjected ur little bs remarks and personal jabs-to which i ignored all of them for the most part-because i realized them for what they were-immature rantings-ive seen it many times on message boards before...people who are more interested in trying to interject things to simply get a response...its called trolling-posting for effect-no content-and trying to get a rise out of someone....and yes...thats exactly what uve done with nearly every post uve posted towards me....with absolutely no regard for content...

                    the mistake i made was finally responding to ur childish banter...and for that im very regretful....because since i did, uve only sought to escalate the same activity....which only stands to reason for someone whos only interested in developing some sort of rise and not interested in content....

                    go ahead...review all ur comments from my day 1 here....they all have the same common denominator...and anyone that looks at them will see them for the obvious troll they are....and ur probably most happy now, because this type of response is like nirvana for a troll....

                    and yes...i will leave u out of my discussions....and it was probably a mistake to even mention u-but instead of responding to another one of ur ridiculous troll posts just a few posts prior, i chose only to indirectly address u....yes...i was sick of ur **** then, and am sick of ur **** now...every response u make towards me is completely off topic and a personal flame....why ive even acknowledged it is beyond me-bcause i know it only flames the fire...

                    in summary...yes...this is an open forum....but if u want to be left out of my discussions there was a simple solution....STAY OUT OF THEM....keep ur bs troll posts to urself....

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                      Originally posted by beast23
                      ...snipping content...
                      I nominate that to be made a sticky entry under a separate thread without comments allowed as the single best explanation of how most (not all) of us who "support" Ron feel.

                      I grant that there are the Ron Jockers, but I think beast23's post best reflects the majority of those who have not completely written Ron off.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                          Originally posted by Knucklehead Warrior
                          Why is this surprising? It's part of our Indiana basketball heritage. In fact it's been going on for at least 20 years. When it comes to basketball in OUR state, integrity and character often take a back seat as the end clearly justifies the means.

                          .
                          I'm sorry, I have to jump on this.

                          I think (at a risk of inspiring flippant comments) that the definition of "integrity" and "character" (or, probably more to the point, the definition of a fatal flaw in integrity and character) is extremely important.

                          Taking the example that I'm betting you wanted everyone to think about ...

                          Knight's actions on the court and in practice, in the heat of competition or in the handling of team members, have been the areas in the spotlight. Similarly to Ron's actions, some have seen the on-court as "heat of the moment" issues that deserved punishment but then should be evaluated in terms of current behavior. Some have seen them as unacceptable, but when they become unacceptable was individually determined. The issues in practice - which were the final straw - stemmed from an approach to practice that worked or failed on a team-member-by-team-member basis. In Knight's case, once a final straw was reached the decision (controversial as it may have been) was made to cut him loose. So far, I haven't heard boo about his actions at TT, perhaps he has changed (or is that impossible ...)

                          Also like Ron, there were lots of upsides that resulted in the extension of extra chances. Winning was not really one of them, except as it might have applied to the emotional connection the Knight Fanatics showed in his favor. Recall that Knight conducted his recruiting with unquestioned propriety. Remember what his graduation rate was. Do these count as part of a definition of character or integrity? Which would you rather have - a coach that behaves like a **** in practice and on the court but emphasizes graduation, teamwork, and proper procedures? Or a coach that is perfect on the floor and in practice but cheats in recruiting and emphasizes basketball over education (and probably compiles a better record)?

                          We can acknowledge the similarity of the situations but please don't make it so simplistic as to state that Indiana basketball fans subsume everything to winning.
                          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


                          • #28
                            Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                            Originally posted by Peck
                            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.
                            ok...ive decided theres only one way i can do this...and thats go by a section at a time...i realize it might not flow the best....but theres a lot here...and i think each is a bit in of itself, worth talking about....in the end ill try to pull it all together...but i think it might be obvious by that time what im getting at...

                            the above is what i would call the premise for what u do...or have done in some cases....

                            and i think u understand, this is my bigggest potential hangup...maybe...discussion shall make it more clear if indeed it is or not....

                            after the events of the last few days ive decided to start 3 separate threads when i can find the time....and there structure, i promise will be a bit different...they will be more of a literary piece u read versus just throwing my thoughts down in the same way i speak...

                            the first will deal with the FAN and what all that entails...and the many ways FANS conduct themselves as well as the many different ways they support their team....and we will delve into the touchy subjects -and they are very subjective-as to what is appropriate, do i dare say, and what might not be...

                            the second and third will probably be one about ron and one about jo....they are the two best players on this team and because of that they are probably the most controversial...

                            the three threads will all tie together....and many of the thoughts may come up as im discussing this current thread..

                            anyway...sorry to wander....ur premise is pretty understandable....i would tell u im not in the boat that feels ron walks on water...im not sure who might feel this way, when u say that or something similar...i would have a problem with anyone that feels he can do no wrong simply because hes a basketball player...

                            however...my huge issue is this premise that i see...and i cant quite tell if its hypocritical or not....and thats why im discussing it....dale davis is my favorite pacer player....has been almost since he got here....after watching about his first 10 games he definitely was....

                            BUT....because hes our favorite player...doesnt mean we just pass off what he does and basically make excuses for it....how is that any different than what so blatantly rubs u the wrong way where 'artest apologizers' are concerned....

                            from day one...dale has always been one whos not afraid to fight...and while u can argue all u want that its needed-enforcer-that in no way makes it any less worse than what it really is...seriously-and i dont want to wander off topic-but ive often wondered what dale wouldve done if the cup hit him in the chest....i love him...but i cant help but think he wouldve done something similar-dont kill me...(of course, i also believe wallace wouldnt have shoved dale in the throat, but even if he did dale wouldve kicked his *** and never wouldve never got near the scorers table in a half frenzied state-which is why i so often times find myself wishing artest wouldve just coldcocked wallace like he wanted to-but because he is so trying to 'change' and use restraint, and be a better teammate he backed off, but anyway)

                            but this goes to mindset again...giving someone the benefit of the doubt...not looking for things to hate a person for....if dale had done it...the reaction wouldve been a bit different...and thats not really my point as much as how the initial mindset almost predetermines how we view everything that happens....

                            but i guess as i review that thread over and over regarding bonzi...the real reason i somewhat questioned it then and still do now is this....the posts leading up to ur comments didnt seem to be the type of posts that would induce such a dramatic emotional post (am i overreacting)

                            http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=12430

                            reread the thread from the beginning...to the point where u responded in the 17 post....

                            i just remember thinking when reading....wow....where did that come from...and thinking it just seemed out of character...

                            if the premise is to not stand by when u see something being said that is blatantly wrong...ok...i agree with that...but thats not really what u did in that post....

                            I have never been able to figure out how it is that the first people to rush to make certain that Ron Artest is aquited of a felony are also always the first in line to spit on Bonzi Wells.

                            I have no real interest in Bonzi at this point either, but for the love of God let's not act like he is a worse person than Ron.
                            it seems to me u used the fact that people were saying they didnt want bonzi here(and i only saw one post prior to urs that was somewhat graphic about bonzi) as a form to really vent a little about ron...i sense a lot of emotion in the way that post is worded....now maybe it had to do with what was going on with u at that very moment...and i certainly dont want to pick a post a part...we could do that with anyones...especially mine...but it appears to me that the 'i have no real interest in bonzi' was on point and the rest was a somewhat unsolicited semi-attack on ron character...forgive me for saying so...

                            so u see my point on the premise issue??? or no....

                            i will say this...with players we like, as well as other fellow humans, we are much quicker to relunctantly accept their faults....simply because we like them...but if we get the mindset we dont like someone...well....our behavior can be a bit irrational and out of character at times....as evidenced by a post i posted just a bit earlier in this thread....for which im already somewhat regretting....

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                              Originally posted by Vicious Tyrant
                              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?
                              There's almost never "another person." As far as the AK-47 thing, Ron's got a pretty good record with this... I'd bet most NBA players have stories like this. These aren't the things that worry me about Ron. Nobody thought Jordan was mental for trying to take Reggie's eyes out.

                              If Ron was scared of Ben, he wouldn't have fouled him going to the rack. He'd have let him score and walked out with the win.

                              I don't want to get into this thread (other than to say the first point BillS made was 100% right on), but I think this is crazy talk. Ron has a lot of problems (and I like the guy!), but he's not a bully. You can't get there from here unless you already dislike the guy and are looking for ways to make him look bad. Peck's been doing this for a while (and I truly respect Peck).

                              EDIT: Bill just posted another great point. Just to clarify, I was talking about his original post.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                                Maybe the best post of the year, Peck.

                                Every single poster on this board knows Ron Artest can play the game at a high level, that's not the debate. The guy has too many problems, and Peck did an excellent job of outlining those.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X