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

  • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

    Originally posted by foretaz
    who says he doesnt fit?? the coaching staff says he does...the management says he does...they would seem to be the two most knowledgeable and qualified to do so...let alone the most qualified to do something about it if they felt differently? if its the fans eyes.....well...first of all not all fans want that...in fact, not that it matters, but its the minority that want that...however thats irrelevant....please explain to me, however, how a fan is more qualified to make this decision than the coaching staff and the management?? this actually makes a fine argument for the theory that coaches should coach, management should manage, and fans should cheer and shut the hell up about everything else....



    Who says he he doesn't fit? Rick Carisle. "Conduct detrimental to winning," remember?

    If he fit within the team concept, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The stupid sideshow that Ron brings, and that we have grown accustomed to, wouldn't exist.

    I think that covered the first half of this blurb. As for the second half, I agree with you, actually.

    Some fans should shut the hell up.
    Originally posted by foretaz

    show me where i said anything about blind??? please dont put words in my mouth....if ur gonna quote me, please dont delete my words and then choose others that u would rather use....

    its hardly blind to have faith that qualified individuals do their job....im assuming if ur old enuff that someone has faith that u will do ur job...or ur teacher has faith u will do ur homework....

    in both instances being able to see and religion have nothing to do with it....
    You mention faith, and faith is inherently blind. Blind faith is the basis of religon.

    In fact, you offer a great example of blind faith in the following quote.

    and to maintain any sort of sanity, its a necessity to trust and believe that every member of the organization from the owners right down to the ballboys want the same things....primarily based on winning a championship...and furthermore i gotta believe that everyone is doing everything they can do make that happen....


    Many choose to believe that there is something greater than any of us waiting the heavens in order to keep the sanity.

    You choose to believe the Pacers are 100% dedicated to winning a championship to keep the sanity.

    I could draw you a Venn Diagram, if you'd like.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

      Originally posted by foretaz


      i dont look at it much different than a coaching strategy, for instance....i may not agree with certain philosophies...i might not like a certain assistant...but im a pacer fan....and to maintain any sort of sanity, its a necessity to trust and believe that every member of the organization from the owners right down to the ballboys want the same things....primarily based on winning a championship...and furthermore i gotta believe that everyone is doing everything they can do make that happen....

      While I think everyone in the organization would like to have a championship I think there are varying degrees to which it drives them. That's one of the places some of us disagree. I'd like to think that the first thing everyone does (from players to coaches to management to ownership) is wake up in the morning and start asking themselves what they can do today to see that the Pacers win a championship this coming season. Unfortunately, (for us fans) that is most likely not the case.

      I'm certain (IMHO) management tries to strike a balance between getting that elusive championship banner and maintaining a competitive team for the foreseeable future.

      And let's not forget money factors. Either the owners won't, or management is too wise to spend like money grows on trees. Now, maybe there is a better balance or maybe what money is spent could be put to better use (cough Bender cough Croshere cough Reggie cough cough cough....) but that is what these forums are good for (we won't answer the question but by gosh we can debate it! )

      On the other part of your post.... I'm afraid your post is coming awfully close to the dreaded declaration that some people aren't 'true fans' unless they show their support a certain way (that in this case agrees with you). That is one of the things Sassan couldn't get and so he looked to explain people not believing or showing the same support as him with 'labels' that more times than not were not accurate (and were usually insulting). That's dangerous ground and I'm not sure I want to go there right now.


      -Bball
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


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

        Holy cow bball I want to shoot my computer screen after looking at your post....
        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

        Comment


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

          [QUOTE]
          Originally posted by Bball
          While I think everyone in the organization would like to have a championship I think there are varying degrees to which it drives them. That's one of the places some of us disagree. I'd like to think that the first thing everyone does (from players to coaches to management to ownership) is wake up in the morning and start asking themselves what they can do today to see that the Pacers win a championship this coming season. Unfortunately, (for us fans) that is most likely not the case.


          measuring committment is something i prefer to try to avoid...its about like measuring effort...its usually only dont with a negative mindset...i think u have to assume committment....otherwise u might as well question everything...i think this team has repeatedly shown their level of committment is quite high...and larry bird seems to be very motivated by nature....things have a way of starting at the top and working down...so i like the feeling i get overall

          I'm certain (IMHO) management tries to strike a balance between getting that elusive championship banner and maintaining a competitive team for the foreseeable future.
          i like being in contention every year....i remember the mid 70s and 80s where we had no shot....not only are we competitive every year we are generally a title contender....i think we are unbelievably spoiled when it comes to this....a few years ago we were battling the knicks...look what happened to them...a few years ago we were battling the bulls...look what happened to them...we played the lakers in the finals, look what happened to them...yes...i feel management has earned our support and continues to do so....and yet some will tell u point blank how wrong they are where the artest situation is concerned....well..given the track record of the organization and the lack of track record of the fan...guess which way im leaning???...

          And let's not forget money factors. Either the owners won't, or management is too wise to spend like money grows on trees. Now, maybe there is a better balance or maybe what money is spent could be put to better use (cough Bender cough Croshere cough Reggie cough cough cough....) but that is what these forums are good for (we won't answer the question but by gosh we can debate it! )
          they are in the top tier in payroll spent...while being in the middle tier as far as ticket prices go....i think thats more than fair....i think they have shown a willingness to spend....more importantly theyve shown a committment to fans to provide a consistent winning product....have mistakes been made with contracts? definitely where austin was concerned...but understandably so....they were afraid to let him go without anything...which is understandable, business wise...in hindsight sure..should have let him walk...but hindsight, well..u know...bender is a fluke...no way to know where his health was concerned...whatta ya do?

          On the other part of your post.... I'm afraid your post is coming awfully close to the dreaded declaration that some people aren't 'true fans' unless they show their support a certain way (that in this case agrees with you). That is one of the things Sassan couldn't get and so he looked to explain people not believing or showing the same support as him with 'labels' that more times than not were not accurate (and were usually insulting). That's dangerous ground and I'm not sure I want to go there right now.

          -Bball

          naaaa...dont confuse things....i would never attempt to tell someone how they should support their team...i do it my way...u do it urs....however i do believe that a true fan should be supportive, both in matters they approve as well as disapprove....because its ultimately about team...not any one player or coach or whatever.....

          notice i didnt say like...only support...its quite possible to support something u dont like....the key is focusing on the parts that u do...and considering we are pacers fans first, that shouldnt be that difficult...

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by foretaz

            .a few years ago we were battling the knicks...look what happened to them...

            No championship

            Originally posted by foretaz


            a few years ago we were battling the bulls...look what happened to them...



            Several championships...

            Originally posted by foretaz


            we played the lakers in the finals, look what happened to them...



            Multiple championships (and a series loss in the Finals)


            I'm not sure what all that means.... Maybe it means you can't have your cake and eat it too? Or maybe it means John Starks can't play a deciding game where he shoots 0 for 50 (or whatever it was). In any case, we just gave Rimfire a bad flashback. Rimfire->

            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


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

              Sorry guys I got home late & I just don't have the time or energy to go at this tonight, it will take to long.

              Fortaz I will get to this, but I think there is a lot of ground to cover & I'm not sure I even understand all of it yet so give me some time.


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

              Comment


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

                Ok I tried to stay out, but still feel that I have to defend myself, and why would i shutup when I have an opinion.

                Defend myself? Yes, from what Peck says and what is insinuated by more, Seeing my posts on the "artest" topic, I am definitely seen as being in the camp of "defenders", though I disagree with that.

                What rattles me most is that Peck & Jay have defined positions, so defined that no matter what happens Ron has no chance to redeem himself with them, yet they oppose those that "defend" Ron at all cost because they "like" him or whatever other reason.

                Let me re-itterate once again: I did and do not approve of Ron going into the stands, nor do I support him in actions that are detrimental to anything on the team, yet I defended (and will remain doing so) him on this board, but for totally different reasons.

                I am duly aware of the talent he brings, as well as of the humanitarian he is, as well as how immature he really is.
                Few would say the things that Ron says, few compared him to 4th graders, all correct, however in this league few would make 1.5 mio and give it all away to their family and try to solve their financial hardship resulting from that by applying for a part-time job at a store.
                Few on this board have thankfully had the live he had, which is one of the reasons I feel he has more "leeway" then others, it is something society has proven to be partial to, those who are weaker due to upbringing have more considerations then those who have not, and no it does not always balance out.

                Where did I most fiercely defend Ron? well in actual fact I never defended Ron, not in the sense of the word "defend" but I did disagree with the handling of the "brawl", the outcome for the Pacers and Ron in particular.
                My "sense of justice" gets extremely perverted by not getting all the facts and seeing one man shows deciding on the faith of a player and the franchise he is playing for, I have a problem with injustice when in any way I am "touched" by it, as in this case as a Pacerfan I am.

                Some definitions that have been tossed around losely in this thread are "team" and "crazy".
                By all common day standard explanations of the word crazy, Ron is not. In actual fact there ar more people on this board that fit in that category, myself including, then Ron.
                As for "team", I agree it's all about the team, however despite what some say, team and "talented individuals thrown together" have more in common then you try to make it out to be.
                A team is nothing but a collection of (preferably most) talented individuals playing together and functioning as a team, molded to act in the combined intrest of winning.
                The molding part is the management's task, the ciaching staff and the front-office are responsible for a few things:
                Front office; to get the best talent available for the money available (or allowed to spend) at the disposition of the coaching staff who then has the more or less enviable task to mold the team.
                The individual talents are subject to a salespitch called "teamconcept" and they either buy, or don't buy. If they don't buy management has several options, drop the individual and find an individual more likely to buy into the concept, or get a better salesperson (coach) to sell the concept.
                It is not up to the individual to "drop" himself into a mold, as an example, when Ron complained in the early stages of last year about the fact that it was no fun playing like they did, he wa suspended for conduct detrimental to winning, one way to enfore a sale, however as addition to that the team changed its ways somewhat, one of those things that changed around that time was Mike Bronw in Ricks absence (T) inserted Jamaal, and we all know the outcome to that.

                What I am trying to say is that it is not all on the player, responsibility is laying elsewhere as well, and we as supporters (a word I like a lot better then "fans") fared well with that and should.
                We are all entitled to an opinion, those who want to think about their stance and change it from time to time due to what they see or read are just as smart as those who never waver, "I told you so" is so easy to say, but over the years I have grown to hate saying it, in all circumstancs, not only "pacers" related.

                We have opinions on players, (Ron is crazy, JO will never become a leader, AJ sux, JB is a wuss) without knowing the individuals, knowing their motivation, their real feelings and their real talents.
                Many may experience the same frustration we feel when watching but over their "task" in the "concept" some may cherish their "task" like some here cherish the concept of whatever over something else.

                I refuse to judge players on anything else but their work on the floor and the sweat they shed, I do not concllude that when Jamaal is injured again that he is less conditioned then others, he may just be plain unlucky, it does not diminish his "heart" nor his talent, both of which he has shown a plentitude. If JO gets injured I do not hink he's a prima donna, I see the warrior that plays hurt and does whatever he can to still produce his best. When ron goes ape**** I do not see a lunatic, I see a troubled youth doing his utmost to fit into the concept and give his best, and when believing that the concept is not going to do it tries to do something more (not always the right one, but trying accounts for something)
                When I see SJax breaking yet another offensive play I do not see an idiot, I see a player feeling that other or the concept cant get it done and trying to do it himself.
                If I see JO in the post with the ball and the rest of the team waiting at the 3pt line I do not see a prima dona who wants to do it all alone, I see a flawed concept to which he as leader wants to stick.
                If I see Reggie (or JJ) pass up another shot to dump in the post, I see a flawed concept, but players sticking to it to a fault.
                If I read JO is and will not be a leader I think Reggie might have held him back, because if I read about him, or see his progress over the years I see a lighting example to kids all over the world and a great leader to be.
                If I read about scurmages on the plane or the team in general I see frustration in individuals that all want the same thing, to win.

                A supporter is what it says, I am a Pacers supporter, not a fan, though I might be crazy, there are more important things in my life then the Pacers.
                I support this team and all the players that are a part of it, they are not free from critcism, but they are players on a team I support and as such they are entitled of my support. I do not have to love them individually, but I do support them.

                Some people have crossed lines I hope I never cross when it comes to feelings for people I do not know. But it is up to them to want to do so. Far be it from me to judge anyone for that matter.

                I support the Pacers and their players when I comment on the "judicial" effects of the brawl, whilst keeping an open mind to justice in general and the way it is used in most civilized countries, I then have a right to give my opinion on those matters.
                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by able
                  Ok I tried to stay out, but still feel that I have to defend myself, and why would i shutup when I have an opinion.

                  Defend myself? Yes, from what Peck says and what is insinuated by more, Seeing my posts on the "artest" topic, I am definitely seen as being in the camp of "defenders", though I disagree with that.

                  What rattles me most is that Peck & Jay have defined positions, so defined that no matter what happens Ron has no chance to redeem himself with them, yet they oppose those that "defend" Ron at all cost because they "like" him or whatever other reason.

                  Let me re-itterate once again: I did and do not approve of Ron going into the stands, nor do I support him in actions that are detrimental to anything on the team, yet I defended (and will remain doing so) him on this board, but for totally different reasons.

                  I am duly aware of the talent he brings, as well as of the humanitarian he is, as well as how immature he really is.
                  Few would say the things that Ron says, few compared him to 4th graders, all correct, however in this league few would make 1.5 mio and give it all away to their family and try to solve their financial hardship resulting from that by applying for a part-time job at a store.
                  Few on this board have thankfully had the live he had, which is one of the reasons I feel he has more "leeway" then others, it is something society has proven to be partial to, those who are weaker due to upbringing have more considerations then those who have not, and no it does not always balance out.

                  Where did I most fiercely defend Ron? well in actual fact I never defended Ron, not in the sense of the word "defend" but I did disagree with the handling of the "brawl", the outcome for the Pacers and Ron in particular.
                  My "sense of justice" gets extremely perverted by not getting all the facts and seeing one man shows deciding on the faith of a player and the franchise he is playing for, I have a problem with injustice when in any way I am "touched" by it, as in this case as a Pacerfan I am.

                  Some definitions that have been tossed around losely in this thread are "team" and "crazy".
                  By all common day standard explanations of the word crazy, Ron is not. In actual fact there ar more people on this board that fit in that category, myself including, then Ron.
                  As for "team", I agree it's all about the team, however despite what some say, team and "talented individuals thrown together" have more in common then you try to make it out to be.
                  A team is nothing but a collection of (preferably most) talented individuals playing together and functioning as a team, molded to act in the combined intrest of winning.
                  The molding part is the management's task, the ciaching staff and the front-office are responsible for a few things:
                  Front office; to get the best talent available for the money available (or allowed to spend) at the disposition of the coaching staff who then has the more or less enviable task to mold the team.
                  The individual talents are subject to a salespitch called "teamconcept" and they either buy, or don't buy. If they don't buy management has several options, drop the individual and find an individual more likely to buy into the concept, or get a better salesperson (coach) to sell the concept.
                  It is not up to the individual to "drop" himself into a mold, as an example, when Ron complained in the early stages of last year about the fact that it was no fun playing like they did, he wa suspended for conduct detrimental to winning, one way to enfore a sale, however as addition to that the team changed its ways somewhat, one of those things that changed around that time was Mike Bronw in Ricks absence (T) inserted Jamaal, and we all know the outcome to that.

                  What I am trying to say is that it is not all on the player, responsibility is laying elsewhere as well, and we as supporters (a word I like a lot better then "fans") fared well with that and should.
                  We are all entitled to an opinion, those who want to think about their stance and change it from time to time due to what they see or read are just as smart as those who never waver, "I told you so" is so easy to say, but over the years I have grown to hate saying it, in all circumstancs, not only "pacers" related.

                  We have opinions on players, (Ron is crazy, JO will never become a leader, AJ sux, JB is a wuss) without knowing the individuals, knowing their motivation, their real feelings and their real talents.
                  Many may experience the same frustration we feel when watching but over their "task" in the "concept" some may cherish their "task" like some here cherish the concept of whatever over something else.

                  I refuse to judge players on anything else but their work on the floor and the sweat they shed, I do not concllude that when Jamaal is injured again that he is less conditioned then others, he may just be plain unlucky, it does not diminish his "heart" nor his talent, both of which he has shown a plentitude. If JO gets injured I do not hink he's a prima donna, I see the warrior that plays hurt and does whatever he can to still produce his best. When ron goes ape**** I do not see a lunatic, I see a troubled youth doing his utmost to fit into the concept and give his best, and when believing that the concept is not going to do it tries to do something more (not always the right one, but trying accounts for something)
                  When I see SJax breaking yet another offensive play I do not see an idiot, I see a player feeling that other or the concept cant get it done and trying to do it himself.
                  If I see JO in the post with the ball and the rest of the team waiting at the 3pt line I do not see a prima dona who wants to do it all alone, I see a flawed concept to which he as leader wants to stick.
                  If I see Reggie (or JJ) pass up another shot to dump in the post, I see a flawed concept, but players sticking to it to a fault.
                  If I read JO is and will not be a leader I think Reggie might have held him back, because if I read about him, or see his progress over the years I see a lighting example to kids all over the world and a great leader to be.
                  If I read about scurmages on the plane or the team in general I see frustration in individuals that all want the same thing, to win.

                  A supporter is what it says, I am a Pacers supporter, not a fan, though I might be crazy, there are more important things in my life then the Pacers.
                  I support this team and all the players that are a part of it, they are not free from critcism, but they are players on a team I support and as such they are entitled of my support. I do not have to love them individually, but I do support them.

                  Some people have crossed lines I hope I never cross when it comes to feelings for people I do not know. But it is up to them to want to do so. Far be it from me to judge anyone for that matter.

                  I support the Pacers and their players when I comment on the "judicial" effects of the brawl, whilst keeping an open mind to justice in general and the way it is used in most civilized countries, I then have a right to give my opinion on those matters.
                  very, very eloquently put....and unbelievably reflective of my own personal feelings...i quit keeping count of the times i said 'thats exactly how i feel' at about 153....

                  Comment


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

                    WOW !!!!

                    Great post.

                    Able, you have expressed so many of my feelings that I feel like I wrote this piece. Nice piece of work.


                    I would rather be the hammer than the nail

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by able
                      Defend myself? Yes, from what Peck says and what is insinuated by more, Seeing my posts on the "artest" topic, I am definitely seen as being in the camp of "defenders", though I disagree with that.

                      What rattles me most is that Peck & Jay have defined positions, so defined that no matter what happens Ron has no chance to redeem himself with them, yet they oppose those that "defend" Ron at all cost because they "like" him or whatever other reason.
                      Oh, get off your high horse. The opposite is true as well. There are people here whose positions are so resolute that they refuse to listen to facts or reason when it comes to defending Ron. Myriad, irrefutable, cold-hard facts that have solely to do with what he's done on the court and behind the scenes. Whereas his defenders' arguments are primarily emotional. And Ron does have a chance to redeem himself. In fact, he's had many chances to redeem himself. And if we are indeed keeping Ron, then he will have, once again, the opportunity to redeem himself (where does it end?). And all that requires is that he play ball and not addle this team with distractions and suspensions, etc. And so far, he has shown he is incapable of doing that. Care to refute that?

                      Comment


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

                        Since when is anything behind the scenes refutable?
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Suaveness
                          Since when is anything behind the scenes refutable?
                          You mean irrefutable? I know things that have happened "behind the scenes" that aren't based on speculation or hearsay.

                          Comment


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

                            Iron-clad feather-feet pounding the dust,
                            An October's day, towards evening,
                            Sweat embossed veins standing proud to the plough,
                            Salt on a deep chest seasoning.
                            Last of the line at an honest day's toil,
                            Turning the deep sod under,
                            Flint at the fetlock, chasing the bone,
                            Flies at the nostrils plunder.
                            The Suffolk, the Clydesdale, the Percheron vie
                            with the Shire on his feathers floating.
                            Hauling soft timber into the dusk
                            to bed on a warm straw coating.

                            Heavy Horses, move the land under me.
                            Behind the plough gliding slipping and sliding free.
                            Now you're down to the few
                            And there's no work to do:
                            The tractor's on its way".
                            Let me find you a filly for your proud stallion seed
                            to keep the old line going.
                            And we'll stand you abreast at the back of the wood
                            behind the young trees growing.
                            To hide you from eyes that mock at your girth,
                            and your eighteen hands at the shoulder.
                            And one day when the oil barons have all dripped dry
                            and the nights are seen to draw colder
                            they'll beg for your strength, your gentle power
                            your noble grace and your bearing.
                            And you'll strain once again to the sound of the gulls
                            in the wake of the deep plough, sharing.

                            Standing like tanks on the brow of the hill
                            Up into the cold wind facing
                            In stiff battle harness, chained to the world
                            Against the low sun racing.
                            Bring me a wheel of oaken wood
                            A rein of polished leather
                            A Heavy Horse and a tumbling sky
                            Brewing heavy weather.

                            Bring a song for the evening
                            Clean brass to flash the dawn
                            across these acres glistening
                            like dew on a carpet lawn.
                            In these dark towns folk lie sleeping
                            as the heavy horses thunder by
                            to wake the dying city
                            with the living horseman's cry.
                            At once the old hands quicken,
                            bring pick and wisp and curry comb,
                            thrill to the sound of all
                            the heavy horses coming home.
                            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                            Comment


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

                              hear·say ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hîrs)
                              n.
                              Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
                              Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

                              spec·u·la·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spky-lshn)
                              n.

                              Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
                              A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
                              Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

                              Engagement in risky business transactions on the chance of quick or considerable profit.
                              A commercial or financial transaction involving speculation.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by foretaz
                                hear·say ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hîrs)
                                n.
                                Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
                                Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

                                spec·u·la·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spky-lshn)
                                n.

                                Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
                                A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
                                Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

                                Engagement in risky business transactions on the chance of quick or considerable profit.
                                A commercial or financial transaction involving speculation.
                                Thanks, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of their meaning.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X