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 Suaveness
    How did you know about our army>!?!? I thought it was topsecret??
    alright...we have a problem....this is starting to look a lot like portland....

    i want a complete check done on all hard drives....theres a traitor amongst us and he must be weeded out....

    Comment


    • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

      Originally posted by Suaveness
      How did you know about our army>!?!? I thought it was topsecret??
      Harmonica has been remote viewing your meetings!

      -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......

        Originally posted by Bball
        Harmonica has been remote viewing your meetings!

        -Bball

        You mean he wasn't that bikini-clad Hawaiian dancer we asked for?? Or was he....
        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 foretaz
          alright...we have a problem....this is starting to look a lot like portland....

          i want a complete check done on all hard drives....theres a traitor amongst us and he must be weeded out....

          Usually not how the word weed is used when associated with Portland......
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


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

            It seems to me like I remember there being a lot more involved in that 1978 draft than just not getting Larry Bird.

            We were shipping off players right and left after entering the league from the ABA, we just couldn't afford to re-sign them. And we were constantly looking to swap out older veterans making higher salaries for young studs not making nearly as much.

            Anyway, we decided to pass on Bird. But I thought that part of that decision was to acquire two players through the draft to fill our needs, and not just settle for one.

            I believe we actually had the #1 pick in that draft. But since the draft was week, didn't we trade that pick to Portland for their #3 pick and Johnny Davis (who just cimpleted his rookie season)? Portland took Mychal Thompson out of Minnesota, and the Pacers picked up two young players for a pick that they said they would have used on Robey, anyway.

            By the way, the draft rules back at that time did not lock in a draftee for 3 years. A draftee who refused to sign could sit out the single season, then go right back into the draft the following year.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Peck
              Dear God I don't even know how to begin this or for that matter where to begin. I thought about asking you to just summerize your thoughts in one post but then I thought that would be rude on my part. So I will try (& probably fail) to reply to each of your posts one by one.

              On a side note, man this thread went everywhere. At one point in time I thought I would just need to run in here with some soothing words or even a song just to end the tension.

              Ok, let's deal with this post first.

              Don't take this the wrong way but when it came to the Bonzi Wells thread I was dealing more with forum history than I was the post of the moment. Even though I was post # 17 in that thread there were 4 posters previous to me that have (in the past not that post) made comments about Bonzi Wells character while at the same time stating that character issues are off of the table with Ron.

              Ok, that is a little bit of hyperbole, nobody ever actually said that character issues were off the table with Ron but they will do everything in thier power to jump on the granade whenever it is tossed Ron's way & yet they dismiss Bonzi Wells because he has issues.

              I stated I have no interest in Bonzi. If he is the cancer behind the scenes that we hear about then I don't want him here either. But that in no way means that I should want Ron here just to make up the differance, does it?

              Ok, that was rambling. Let me try & clarify. What you saw with the Bonzi Wells post was more of issue # 1 with me. I was trying to counter the Ron Artest army (& they know who they are don't you Suaveness ) by just injecting my thoughts into the debate. Maybe I shouldn't do that & it's something I'll think about & see how I feel about it.

              BTW, Suaveness knows that was meant in fun or at least I hope he does.

              Ok, your first issue which I will deal with second.
              what u are saying is u took this opportunity to call out the ron artest supporters(for being a hypocrite in ur eyes)....no other way to look at it....and that was my whole problem...and why i asked u why u would feel compelled to do so....ron was never mentioned in the thread....hell, bonzis antics were barely mentioned in the thread....so why interject ron into the mix, especially when u know full well what will happen....

              even if people are on record as saying how they feel...and even if by disapproving of bonzi u feel theyre being hypocritical(thats a whole nother discussion really-whether ron and bonzi are the same)....the point is noone was bringing it up....it just screamed of looking for a reason to call these people out for their stance on ron....for which nothing good can be accomplished....and u know better....

              i understand how it easy to call someone out for being a hypocrite...ive mentioned my personal feelings regarding hypocrisy...its kinda what i did with the dale thing...it will really be a neverending spiral...favoritism and hypocrisy are intertwined, and will forever be....call people out for being a hypocrite if u would like-but when its done over and over on the same issue, its a bit redundant....and i guess was probably saying in this case "you started it" peck...and kinda my question was peck "why start that stuff" nothing new will come from it...if u have issues with hypocrites with one thing...if u have issues with people where ron is concerned, thats ok too...but to look to call those people out on those things when theyre not even being discussed...well...it will take things off on a tangent every time...and u know that


              Dale Davis.... Well were to begin with this?

              *******Please people for the love of God let's not take what I'm about to say as an excuse to argue about the brawl again************

              I'll just go ahead & say this now, it never would have gone that far with Dale for two reasons.

              1. Dale would have gone at Ben Wallace right at mid-court.

              2. Dale Davis (& this is IMPORTANT) would never have given Ben Wallace a gentle shove as he was going up for a basket like Ron did.

              People act like Ben was unprovoked by Ron, that's just not true. Ben way way over reacted no doubt, but what did Ron think Ben would do? Actually that was the problem IMO, Ron didn't think. He just reacted. He was fouled on the other end with no call by Big Ben's Big @ss & he vohemently complained at the half to Jim Grey that the refs. were letting him get killed under the boards so when this went down he reacted. We all know what happened from there.

              So, sorry I just can't agree with your Dale Davis analogy on this. Over his Pacer career I can only think of two occasions that Dale ever did anything to a player that wasn't looking at him & in both cases it was a retaliation for Mark Jackson getting hit & in neither case was Dale even called for a foul let alone a flagrant.

              1. He laid out Scottie Pippen with a hard pick (but I've always had a feeling that this was under the instruction of Bird but I have no proof) during the playoffs.

              2. He nailed Kurt Thomas in the back of the head on a rebound with a forarm & Kurts bell was rung & had to leave the game.

              Now if you are going to ask me if I approve of this? In the case of issue # 1 I do because it was in the sense of making a basketball play & even though it was hard it was legal (the refs. didn't even blow a whistle)

              As to issue # 2? No, that was wrong & Dale shouldn't have done that.

              Like I said I feel in my heart at least, that if Dale did anything I thought was wrong on the floor I would call him out for it. Now don't get me wrong though, I love it when Dale stands up for himself so if you think I'm going to call that wrong it just ain't happening. I've never seen Dale start a fight but I've seen him finish a lot of them.

              Ok, I hope I covered this post well enough for you. I will now move on to the next one.
              i expressed some of my views regarding the dale issue earlier...ill try to keep this brief...which means for me, 1 page instead of 2...

              dales my favorite....that being said....i have seen dale retaliate for something he felt was a bit uncalled for literally hundreds of times....it was in the course of the game...now most of these times he doesnt take a fighters stance-though he does at times...but a hard foul...a flagrant fouls at times...u betcha...im objective enuff to see that and dont have a separate agenda in trying to villify ron for the same behavior....

              every time dale does it or ron does it doesnt necessarily make it right....but its definitely part of the game....what ron did that nite was definitely part of the game...i wont get into the separate argument as to whether it was a flagrant foul or not...whether it was a flagrant 1 or 2 even...i have my personal opinions and im sure theyre skewed by our own personal mindsets...just like pistons fans...things can and probably always will be twisted to suit our personal needs...

              the point is dale has done what ron did many many times that nite...ron and dale have different reputations....dale also doesnt have some of the emotional issues that ron unfortunately has....so when ben overreacted....whatever dale does at that moment is gonna be perceived differently than what ron wouldve done for two reasons....1) ur personal feelings are differnt on the two of them 2)dales reputation is different-and notice im not arguing this point as to validity...ron has his reputation to consider where his actions are concerned...and that appears to be the very reason he walked away....hey...we agree on one thing, maybe...we both wouldve liked to see ron coldcock the guy for certain reasons....however, given rons reputation, i was absolutely grateful he didnt....in fact i remember almost yelling at the tv...ron walk away...please walk away-cause i knew nothing good could come of it...because he would be judged unfairly or at least severely due to his reputation...even when he walked away, i was like yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....but even as wallace kept on, i kept getting nervous...cause the issue wasnt dying down...it seemed to be escalating, especially with the actions of jack, hunter and others...and i remember thinking, god how long could ron, OR ANYONE else really remain relatively calm considering they just got jacked in the throat....and i also remember where are all the friggen security people to get these guys apart???...anyway...i understand the dynamic of wanting ron to retaliate to ben...but i also understand that would ok for just about anybody but Ron...with rons rep...he had to walk away...it would be much better for the team and ron....noone couldve known what would happen next...if they wouldve, it changes everything...but i find it hard to penalize ron for walking away when, in his case it was the right thing to do....the cup was a fluke....and if the cup misses...rons life would probably be much different....everyone would be celebrating rons 'changed behavior and applauding his restraint in such a volatile situation'...and theres no doubt in my mind that we wouldnt be playing the spurs this weekend....but if my aunt had balls shed be my uncle....

              and yes...as i said...if u put dale in that exact same situation(which u probably cant), with all the pent up pressure and stress from the game as well as the energy used to exercise restraint where wallace was concerned...yes...i think he snaps when the cup hits...and i also understand that rons reputation is whats responsible, in large part, for him having his hands tied where responding was concerned......but at that moment its somewhat unfair to blame him for that...all he can do is try to do things as best he can given the situation and his reputation.....and his response that nite was to be applauded-even if it was followed up later by one that is not-no matter how understandable it might be....

              u see...this is tough...because of his reputation...u now ask a guy to respond in a manner that not even normal guys would...for a guy that has serious issues with that-well...lets just say thats a helluva lot to ask...and yes...u can say well whos fault is it...no question about that...but i would say he did do that...he showed more restraint than most anyone would-and where did that eventually get him....thats why i say its almost a no win for him...

              so thats why i probably will support him...at least when he does things that others would do-like his hard foul on wallace....he does something wrong that everyone would agree is wrong...u betcha...ill be the first to call it...but i also believe in an even playing field and giving credit where credit is due...

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Peck
                Ok, again I think we're on the same page. The only part I think we might be on a differant path on is the comment you made about training, educating & makeing the person better. Now if your talking about youngters coming up then you are 100% correct. I'm not sure though that it is the job of the NBA to make the person better. Train? Yes. Educate? Yes. Make a better person? I'd buy it, but then you'd have Rasheed Wallace or Charles Barkley or somebody esle saying they are grown men & shouldn't have to conform to a certain type of person. I think the best they can do is hope they improve as a person. Then this brings up another issue altogether. At what point in time does the assitance of one player become a detriment to other players? I'm sure we'll kick this around as time goes on.
                as an employer-the pacers-it definitely is in their best interest to not only improve ron as a player and a teammate but at least improve the way he is PERCEIVED as a person....this benefits the NBA also...especially with all the problems is having regarding its fan base....and i will tell u this...a problem as large as what has developed is a major major opportunity....and any smart businessman knows this....and we have some incredibly smart business people when u start talking about the nba and the simons' pacer organization...

                this is just one of the reasons artest isnt going anywhere...to cast him off admits hes a lost cause and many many mistakes were made....and whether they were mistakes or not doesnt matter anymore-a point i wish a number of u would digest....whats really important is what happened after nov. 19 and beyond....the eyes of millions will be watching very closely from here on out....and the potential positive impact that can be made is substantial...and for that reason you know have stern and his nba and all their powers as well as the simons' and all their powers going to be doing everything they can do to ensure that rons comeback is not only successful but perceived as a minor miracle and a great human interest story....the against all odds story.....the perceived thug-which isnt accurate-to a player that 'turns himself around' to be worthy contributor to the nba and a championship team.....it makes for great marketing-and we know how stern and the nba feel about that...

                this is why helping ron be recognized as the quality human being that he is is so important....its not that he isnt a great human being...its that he is perceived to be something other than that because of his behavioral issues....you ensure he gets the help he needs to deal with his serious issues then u allow the real ron to come out-and most know that the real ron minus the issues will be not only a dominant basketball player but an incredible human being who a lot of people will be able to relate to because of his personal values as well as respect because of what he might have overcome...



                Ok, let's take your theory as being correct. The theory is that since I am not a Ron Artest fan I will certainly react differantly to what he does than say what Uncle Buck does. I will concur with that & won't even dispute it in any way. In fact I think your right about that.

                Now since I've since I've admitted this I would like you to examine one thing.

                Cause & effect. What caused me to become a non-Artisian & what effect does it play in the way I view him.

                Surely you realize that I didn't just wake up one day & say "You know I need a Pacer to hate today so I think I will choose Ron". Even if you give me that do you think it was just a one time event or was it something more? Was it a pattern of events & behavior that I saw that I didn't like & thus turned me the way I am? & if that is the case then if I see a continuation of the same events & behaviors am I wrong for feeling the same way or am I just predisposed to picking on Ron because I don't like him.

                In other words which came first the chicken or the egg?
                this is probably one of the most crucial points....

                Peck...and anyone that shares ur feelings...

                RON HAS GIVEN U MORE THAN ENUFF BEHAVIORAL DISAPPOINTMENTS TO WRITE HIM OFF...YES...HE HAS...UR FEELINGS ARE TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE...

                i have no doubt that with maybe the exception of Jay, that u as well as most had a clean slate when ron came to town...ill assume as much...and no i dont think u woke up one day and said i want to hate a pacer or ron....i fully understand that it was many of rons behavioral effects combined with how they were perceived to affect the team as well as everyones goal to win a championship...i also realize it comes in part from the human desire to blame someone or something any time we fell disappointment, such is experienced when we are eliminated from the playoffs....

                so are your feelings justified??? YES THEY ARE....

                "now foretaz, if u say this, how come u dont share the rest of our opinions on the matter, specifically why would u even consider supporting him???"

                there are a number of reasons i feel this way, some of which u might even find hypocritical

                1) it is my nature to try and find good in everyone....i can find more good in ron artest than i probably could find in probably 99 percent of professional athletes.....his personal values, especially his family values, are a rarity in professional sports and in society in general....this means a tremendous amount to me....
                his competitive nature, his bringing it every single nite, the pride he has for his performance, his truly caring about his performance and how it affects the outcome, the effort he takes to get and maintain his body in superior shape just exemplifies an overall committment level that is greatly lacking these days and one which i find very appealing when i do consider the kind of money these guys are being paid and how costly it is to be a fan these days, just his overall attitude and approach to the game itself, he is definitely a prima donna-just the opposite...and i could probably go on and on...and i dont think many would dispute these things....

                IN SHORT...RON SEEMS TO REALLY CARE ABOUT THE GAME, HIS PERFORMANCE, AND THE FANS...

                HE CARES...

                2)ok...ive found the good...but what about the bad in people?

                well this is my approach with ron or anyone else....what is he doing and why....rons problems are almost all behavior related....more to the point they are all response related....now that in itself doesnt give cause for optimism...trust me, there are many people i dont care for simply because of how they react, many times how they react to adversity, because thats typically the real issues...

                so i try to understand why they react the way that they do....many peoples reactions are based on how they are as people...hey...facts are facts...many out there are just a$$holes and dickheads....and when faced with adversity that comes screaming to the forefront....and i really dont feel thats the case with ron...and i think others might not either....as i just stated above it appears he s just the opposite....and whenever this is not the case, that person is immediately gonna get a much longer leash with me and i will try to go much deeper to find out what the problem is...

                so then why does he do it???....the ole devil made me do it??...well maybe not quite as farfetched as it sounds....rons behavior is irrational at best at times...that in itself is telling...people dont just act that way...theres a reason for it...and its an alarm for emotional/mental issues...

                and i will tell u that i dont follow the norm here....like it or not, as this forum only further validates by some of the comments i see about what to do with the nutcase and people having screws loose, etc...i think the way people treat people with emotional problems or mental disease is both disgusting and inhumane....but then thats the way society typically is...guys got a problem thats his tough luck....get rid of him and his problems....and u know what...im not sure the pacers wouldnt take that same stance if it wasnt for the benefits he potentially brings when hes able to perform....sad , but true and a reality in this world...luckily, no matter the reason, it appears they have committed to helping him-so their motivation really doesnt matter to me, ultimately...

                ron doesnt appear to have a mental disease....not in any way shape or form...he does appear, simply by his well documented behavior, to have some rather serious emotional issues....and to me, the GQ article was the final confirmation of that....instead of just hearing and seeing how he behaves we were able to hear much more about how he thinks....and even get some insight as to why he thinks the way he does...

                and it was very telling.....he obviously has unresolved deep seated, emotional, traumatic issues...the existence of these issues then make all of the behavioral issues make much more sense....i dare say they make the irrational behavior understandable....

                as i said...i dont take a light attitude that most do with this...he needs help...hes obviously getting that help....and these types of issues are certainly 'fixable' with the proper counseling and therapy....and everyone, most notably ron, will be much much better off as time goes by as long as the level of committment remains to resolving them...

                quite simply, these types of issues dont incline me to pass him off-quite the opposite -it makes me much more sympathetic to what is a genuinely nice guy whos got some serious issues to resolve....

                3) i dont mean to get all religious on anyone, so dont read too much into this....when jesus was asked by the pharisees, i believe, "but lord, how many times shall we forgive our brother-7 times? 77 times?" he responded with something to the sort "777 times is not enuff"

                the point is simple...and i see it asked quite a bit....at what point is enuff, enuff? well i just gave u a bit of a take on my viewpoint.....because ron certainly appears to have a very good heart and doesnt appear to enjoy his behavior when its bad....and because of the nature of his problems....i would say my response would be to the question or questions that go 'how long do we wait, how long do we keep giving him a break, how long is long enuff'

                TIL HE GETS BETTER....and as long as im convinced that hes putting forth an effort to get better that will always be my stance....if people dont share my viewpoints on humanity, i understand as im fully aware of the attitude alot of people take in this world regarding people who have problems similar to ron...however i wont apologize for my feelings on these issues...what can i say im loyal...

                4) im a pacers fan...hes a pacer...to me it doesnt even matter if i like him or not....this kind of goes to the whole FAN thing im gonna do....my feeling is as long as im a pacer fan and supporter that i will be supportive of the whole organization, whether i personally agree or like everything about the pacers....i have made a decision to be a fan...i made that decision knowing full well its not all gonna be positives....im not gonna be happy all the time...im not gonna agree with them all the time...im not gonna like all the members, whether it be coaches, players, management etc....

                i look at it much like a marriage....for better or for worse....i think this is why its called being a FAN...because its a bit fanatical in the concept....but able so aptly put that when ur a pacer supporter u show that support in many different ways...and i personally feel one of those ways is being supportive when i disagree or dont like something....i dont like austin croshere all that much....but as long as hes a pacer he has my support-though at times its hard-and i have to really check myself on that issue....when he was making one shot in like 6 games-well i believe our allegiance and support is always tested....that was mine....i feel ron artest is a test for many of you on here...and for me, at times as well...

                its not easy be a fan...its not easy supporting something we dont like or agree with....and i think its a bit of a bail out to say thats not what a fan means...because i would say back to u then, how is that any different than supporting a team that is losing??? you dont have to be happy that ur losing, but if ur not a fan then-well ur not really a true fan....i personally dont see much difference other than the fact that people dont like that either...which only validates further what im saying....

                what i would tell u is if austin croshere goes to another team i dont have to like him or support him.....and the same holds true for those of u that dont like ron....if hes ever not with the pacers then u can hate him all u want...i personally will continue to like him for the reasons i mentioned to begin with and these things dont change when he leaves the team....

                but the point is i feel as long as im a pacer fan that my loyalty to the team and organization is far larger than any one part of it....and one of the ways i show my support is not only by supporting the parts that i like and agree with but doing the same for the things i dont like or agree with....like i said, what can i say, im loyal....

                to me its the exact same thing as family....ive been a fan for 35 years or so....its a family type relationship ....if a family member screws up well he will still have my support.....especially if that family member is perceived to have a great heart and has serious emotional issues that are in some way are responsible for him acting in a reprehensible manner....do i excuse these acts? nope...do i like them? nope...do i hate the person and quit supporting him???? nope...




                Ok, maybe it's just late at night or I'm just dense but I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. On the one hand you say we shouldn't focus to much on one single player (or at least that's what I think you are saying) & on the other hand you say that it's not very contructive for the team if certain dislikes regarding certain player keep becoming the focal point. That second statement makes Jay & myselfs point better than almost anything we've ever written. In other words one player can bring a team down.

                I'm with ya on that without question.

                Now as to the benefit of the doubt for Ron. Like I said above cause & effect. His benefit of the doubt with me ran out a season & a half ago. Does that mean that from this day forward I must hate Ron Artest & spit on any of his fans? No, obviously it does not. Like I told Since86 give me one season of no disruptions & I will pretty much go away. I still will always be leary of the guy but give me one season where I don't hear anything about Ron Artest other than how great of a job he did in shutting down his man or can you believe he led the league in rebounding (I can dream can't I) & I won't be on here offering up reasons as to why the team would be better without him.
                the point i think i was making that wasnt really clear is what i addressed in item number 4) ....having to do with fans and what it means...

                as far as giving him the benefit of the doubt...this is my contention...and i highlighted ur feelings on it...not only are u not giving him the benefit of the doubt....but because of his past behavioral patterns affecting ur mindset to the point u dont like him, u are now holding him to a standard, that whether u realize it or not and whether u like it or not, is a standard that u hold noone else to or is it even a standard anyone should be held to.....and more to the point...u appear to be taking a stance that every time something is not reaching that standard ur gonna say i told u so and use it against him...

                ur a pacers fan...why would u hold him to a standard that u wouldnt hold any other team member to? or why should he be held to a standard that u wouldnt hold a pistons player to? why should he be held to a standard that the nba doesnt hold him to??

                there will be issues with every player on our team...and to say the only way ron will ever be any different in ur eyes is if u go a whole season without hearing anything but positive things about his play is really the same as saying" hes got no chance with me"....u are setting him up for failure...and u know it...by holding the bar so high that he or anyone else couldnt possibly do anything but fail....pick any player in the league...grant hill, tim duncan, anyone....none of them will measure up to that statement and it truly is, well....

                because heres the thing....hes a player that one, because of his ability and performance, that u typically would give a bit longer leash-not unlike others similar to his status in the league-whether we like it or not....and two, because of his serious issues hes dealing with it might be reasonable to assume there might be times when he does have relapses and these will have to be dealt with accordingly....

                but if he continues to make progress....he becomes less of a distraction and more of a contributor to the team and its unity...and the team gets better as a whole and performs in a way that most are happy with....why shouldnt that be enuff for u??....because what ur saying is its not enuff....he has to be perfect is what ur saying-which is probably something u will deny-but its really what ur sayiing....look at it again...noone is perfect...and to say that even after hes perfect, u will still be leary....i mean cmon...seriously..really...cmon....

                ron will never be perfect...neither will anyone else....and ron, as mentioned in 1) above is far ahead of most players in most categories....if ron continues to improve upon his behavioral deficiencies which allow the team to really begin to come together the way that we all would like....that should be more than enuff for anyone....anyone...anyone


                P.S. i was gonna do a post on why i like and support ron artest...but this is pretty much it...maybe ill post it on its own...or maybe i wont...

                Comment


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

                  Can somebody say what it is about Ron's "family values" that they like?

                  Is it because he has multiple children from multiple girlfriends?

                  It is because he has been charged with leaving threatening messages on the answering machine of one of the mothers of his children back in NY?

                  It is because the police were called for a domestic disburance involving a different mother of his children in Indy?

                  Some of you have seen him with his children and have observed that he seems to be a good father, at least publicly. But as for being a good "family man", well, this seems to be a mixed bag; and not a ringing endoresement of Ron.

                  As I've said before, this particular aspect of Ron isn't very interesting to me. But some of you are more interested in Ron's relationships with his children, wives, and ex-lovers than Ron's relationships with his coaches, management and teammates. Please explain.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


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

                    Peck, foretaz, I really think I'm a better man for reading all this.

                    I can sit though anything now! BRING ON THOSE SOAP OPERAS!

                    Er oh ah, sorry I shouted!

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Peck
                      BTW, as to the franchise being taken down let's just say this. The Pacers nationally had two things going for them, well three if you count Reggie.

                      1. The general public had no idea who they were. If they played the Knicks or somebody then people would know but to the causal fan who only turn in when the big market team is in a deep playoff run they had no idea.

                      2. Those who did know always thought the highest of our franchise & the words respect were almost always said when talking about the way that Walsh & the Simons have ran the franchise from a management standpoint & competative was the other word when they talked about the on floor product.

                      Now virtually every casual fan knows our franchise & it ain't because Reggie Miller retired. Indiana Punchers is not just a local T-shirt, it's a national thing. I saw one at Reagan International airport in D.C. not but one week ago.
                      as for the Tshirt-there will always be opportunistic people trying to make a buck on someone elses misfortune...they also made hicks shirts...my personal feelings arent much different on either...

                      i personally dont have a problem with bringing the pacers franchise into the national spotlight...im not saying i like the circumstances that it happened...but there is a saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity...im not saying i agree with that...but the fact that we will now have more peoples attention, be on nat'l tv more( u dont think rons first game back at the palace wont be a thanksgiving day game? whatta ya wanna bet?) is the opportunity for others to find out what ur saying about our great franchise...

                      and i think ur take on the whole situation might be a bit tainted by ur mindset as far as ron goes...

                      dont u remember the overwhelming opinion that night as far as what people thought? yes the nba put an end to that and spun it much differently...and i was never so disgusted as i was when suddenly the whole episode went from being shown from the foul to just the part where ron went into the stands....wallaces overreaction suddenly disappeared....so yes, to many , thats all they saw....

                      however i think the detroit market and its fans suffered far more than the pacers franchise....ron artest took a huge hit...but remember something....how many people everywhere have said they wouldve done the same thing as ron??? shaq and grant hill come immediately to mind....i really do think ur take on this is a bit off...

                      yes...the franchise was damaged a bit...anything negative is never good...but i think ur also forgetting the fact that they then took all the adversity and turned it into a somewhat of a storybook ending...the fact that many thought the penalties were too severe only added to that story and the pacers were cast into that underdog role, that people inevitably gravitate to....you couple that with reggies somewhat storybook retirement that was a direct result and it turns into a pretty decent feel good story instead of taking the franchise down....and the whole organization is to be applauded...could it have taken the franchise down??? i think so.....did it? not at all...

                      i dont think the harm is nearly as bad as u think...and i think the opportunities that have presented themselves have been and will be continued to elevate this franchise...which is what great organizations do when faced with adversity...


                      Also, & bear in mind this is not my mindset but there are a lot of people who are Pissed off that Ron was involved (there I didn't just blame him) in ruining Reggie Millers last season & what some people considered his best chance at a title.

                      Like I said I'm not of that thought but I know some who are.
                      i completely understand that feeling....and wouldnt really argue with those that feel that way....because i agree that the pacers would have been the favorites to win the title...ive said so before....

                      the only thing i might tell those people as a consolance is this....reggie might have indeed gone out with a championship....we will never know for sure...one thing i do know....he would never have gone out with more fanfare and in a more appropriate manner 'with guns blazing' and scoring 27 in his final game while throwing his team almost singlehandedly on his back and carrying them off into the sunset, so to speak...

                      that...and reggie openly said he didnt blame ron....though im not sure i totally believe him

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                        Can somebody say what it is about Ron's "family values" that they like?

                        Is it because he has multiple children from multiple girlfriends?

                        It is because he has been charged with leaving threatening messages on the answering machine of one of the mothers of his children back in NY?

                        It is because the police were called for a domestic disburance involving a different mother of his children in Indy?

                        Some of you have seen him with his children and have observed that he seems to be a good father, at least publicly. But as for being a good "family man", well, this seems to be a mixed bag; and not a ringing endoresement of Ron.

                        As I've said before, this particular aspect of Ron isn't very interesting to me. But some of you are more interested in Ron's relationships with his children, wives, and ex-lovers than Ron's relationships with his coaches, management and teammates. Please explain.

                        Obviously, by the sarcastic way you ask your questions, you really could care less what the answers are and I am sure you really won't agree with them regardless, unless they match your own opinion.

                        I would rather be the hammer than the nail

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                          Can somebody say what it is about Ron's "family values" that they like?
                          sure....you knew i could

                          Is it because he has multiple children from multiple girlfriends?
                          partly....the fact that he has children from two different women make him just like millions of other families out there that come from or are part of broken homes....people can relate...

                          It is because he has been charged with leaving threatening messages on the answering machine of one of the mothers of his children back in NY?
                          partly...because once again people can relate...all this says is hes much like millions out there....once again...many, many have some exposure to broken homes and the problems that arise...and the fact that ron has been no different allow people to 'relate' to him....leaving threatening messages to the mother of his children is typically understood for what it really is when a player cares for his children the way that ron obviously cares for his....people make mistakes...all the time...it proves hes human...just like all the rest of us...most all of us have made some sort of rhetorical threat in our lives that we were not proud of....

                          i assure u the number of people that have not done something of this nature is far smaller than those who have...doesnt make it right...only makes it human...often times the more human these athletes appear the more appealing they become


                          It is because the police were called for a domestic disburance involving a different mother of his children in Indy?
                          wow...cmon...u know better...i know u do...and what were the findings regarding this incident???????? shame on u jay...that comment is national enquirer like

                          Some of you have seen him with his children and have observed that he seems to be a good father, at least publicly. But as for being a good "family man", well, this seems to be a mixed bag; and not a ringing endoresement of Ron.
                          ur really missing the point i think....or choosing to ignore it because it suits u...not sure which...ill just choose to say its the first because i like u and wanna give u the benefit of the doubt....the point that i think u might be missing is this....

                          its quite apparent, that his family is incredibly important to him....there seems little doubt that its number one is life....that sort of thing is definitely a quality that seems to be dwindling these days....the fact that its such a huge priority to a professional athlete is somewhat noteable as this isnt how they typically are portrayed...once again...its something people admire..and rightfully so in this case...

                          i do find it interesting that u would overdramatize the other events, while downplaying the importance of fatherhood which could be argued to be the most important, by far...


                          As I've said before, this particular aspect of Ron isn't very interesting to me. But some of you are more interested in Ron's relationships with his children, wives, and ex-lovers than Ron's relationships with his coaches, management and teammates. Please explain.
                          it might not be interesting to u....and thats ok....theres definitely a trend for looking at these players as just objects and whether they help our team win and thereby give us personal satisfaction or hinder our team and cause them to lose thereby providing us with great personal disappointment and heartache....

                          as far as each ones personal interest regarding family versus secular relationships...i cant speak for others...i do know that anytime that people feel like they can relate to a superstar professional athlete or entertainer, they inevitably do gravitate that way.....to make it even more interesting is this....one of the NBA's biggest problems is losing touch with its fanbase....they want an need stars that the fans can relate to....thats hard considering the lives of the majority of professional athletes places in society....

                          all these things u mention about ron only point out how much easier it is for the 'average joe' to relate....

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Alabama-Redneck
                            Obviously, by the sarcastic way you ask your questions, you really could care less what the answers are and I am sure you really won't agree with them regardless, unless they match your own opinion.


                            lol...i started to type a very similar response...but i like jay...and to do so would be doing just what he did and some of the others do when discussing ron....

                            so i chose to give him the benefit of the doubt....

                            if i cant do it with him....how can i expect him or anyone else to do it with ron???

                            Comment


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

                              man, i would almost like to see what foretaz has to say except that the font he uses is simply far too annoying to look at. it would be nice if that font were unavailable. nothing personal but, that font is awful and i won't read any post by people who feel they have to do something like that to stick out.

                              Comment


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

                                Actually it isn't too bad to look at anymore, since it isn't small and dark
                                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X