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

  • #31
    Re: An answer for Fortaz......

    Originally posted by Anthem
    Ron has a lot of problems (and I like the guy!), but he's not a bully. You can't get there from here unless you already dislike the guy and are looking for ways to make him look bad.
    you might have just summarized my next post which will probably take a few thousand words in the matter of two sentences...

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: An answer for Fortaz......

      Originally posted by BillS
      I'm sorry, I have to jump on this.

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

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

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

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

      We can acknowledge the similarity of the situations but please don't make it so simplistic as to state that Indiana basketball fans subsume everything to winning.
      Bill, I think we're in agreement. I meant to emphasize not Knight's character or integrity, but the character and integrity of those who think the end justifies the means. It was meant as a dig to all those who "subsume everything to winning." Also to all those who think the nba is a microcosm of life. Of course it isn't. It's the difference between having youth and passion on the team at the expense of also having knuckleheads vs. having maturity and experience. It's the people who are OK with JO swaggering after a dunk vs the people who say "shut up and play."

      It's controlled vs. uncontrolled emotion. I wonder how many more championships IU and the Pacers could have with the controlled variety. It struck me last night as I watched the end of the ECF. We could have beaten both of those teams.
      Don't thank me, I'll kill ya.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: An answer for Fortaz......

        I'm thinkin foretaz is my frontrunner for rookie of the year 2006. Keep it up man. You basically are me if i was able to articulate my ideas. (even if it is big and purple)
        Play Mafia!
        Twitter

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: An answer for Fortaz......

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

          The highlited is the debateable part. While you, along with many many others, may think that they are too many problems, others believe that he doesn't have the same problem twice. He's had quite a bit so far, so his options are getting very limited.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: An answer for Fortaz......

            Originally posted by Since86
            The highlited is the debateable part. While you, along with many many others, may think that they are too many problems, others believe that he doesn't have the same problem twice. He's had quite a bit so far, so his options are getting very limited.
            My thoughts. Thank you. Very succinct.
            Play Mafia!
            Twitter

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: An answer for Fortaz......

              Originally posted by Since86
              The highlited is the debateable part. While you, along with many many others, may think that they are too many problems, others believe that he doesn't have the same problem twice. He's had quite a bit so far, so his options are getting very limited.
              Or that he's got so many problems that he never gets back to the previous problems.

              That's why I tend to think his problems fall into just a couple of categories. He can't handle pressure very well, and he doesn't submit himself to his coaches or teammates. Each individual occurence is just a manifestation of one (or more) of those two problems. I think the so-called anger management issus are just a subset of number 1, which could also be called, "His inability to keep his focus and composure when things aren't going 'his way'". So in that context, I'd say he does have the same problems over and over and over and over.

              As a microcosm, look at Game #6 of last year's ECFs. He skipped practice and a team flight, committed a foul that - with some good acting by Hamilton - made it easy for the officials to call a flagrant whether it was warranted or not, broke the gameplan numerous times, then complained to the press that the Pacers might've won if he were the #1 option. Each of those are different, yet they are all the same.

              I've seen him crumble under pressure too many times and too many different ways.
              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


              • #37
                Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                Originally posted by beast23
                Peck –

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

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

                Issue # 4…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                Which do you consider to be the greater risk? Because, I sure as hell don’t know. I can only go by Larry’s ongoing praise of Artest. But then again, is it genuine or posturing for equal value in a trade? I don’t know.
                Beast, I think this is a great point. Once Brad Miller departed, this team was clearly designed around Ron's skills and the way Ron's skills complement JO's dominant post game. That's why - even last summer - I was an advocate that just subtracting Ron wasn't enough to solve the problem and keep us contenders. There was a thread last summer during the McGrady sweepstakes or perhaps when the Paul Pierce rumors were hot in which I said that all three SFs - Ron, Al, and Jon - needed to be traded last summer so the team could lessen re-balance its skills while remaining a contender. This team has a fundamental, and potentially fatal flaw because it depends on a player with Ron's skills in order to be contender, but there is no player in the league, including Ron, that can be counted on to consistently deliver Ron's skills.

                The question is always, ride it out and pray/ hope that Ron finally gets it and doesn't relapse at just the wrong time, or bite the bullet and re-build. Everyone knows where I've stood on this topic for a long, long time.

                I don't think I do a good enough job of making my frustrations clear sometimes. Ron does exactly what I expect him to - hurt the team. I am mad at DW and Bird for assembling a team that relies on him so much.
                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


                • #38
                  Re: An answer for Fortaz......

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

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

                  That is the one that gets me almost every time. Ron will do some boneheaded stunt & his fans will chime in with "Ronnie just hates to lose so bad"
                  i agree one hundred percent...he has done many, many things that are just plain wrong...many of which were highly embarassing...to both himself as well as the pacers organization....and to make excuses in any way or to attempt to condone any of these actions in any way is ridiculous....

                  i do believe ronnie is one of the most competitive individuals u will ever find-and u definitely want that in a player-but once again that is no excuse for bad behavior-NONE...
                  i also think that the more intense a player is, the more apt he might be to 'lose it'...cause there is a very fine line between love and hate, good and evil....and i do believe that some of the things that enable ronnie to be such a great basketball player at times are the exact same things that cause him to do things that are simply reprehensible...one again-does this excuse it?? NOPE, certainly not

                  i really think we are in agreement here...i really do...and its hard for me to believe that any person wouldnt be....but hey...nothing shocks me anymore...i suppose its possible that some thing this sort of behavior that he engages in from time to time is cool...lets face it...the world is full of people who find entertainment in highly questionable activities...so...who knows...


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

                  In public life we would call it criminal activity.
                  its interesting that u bring up scholastic sports...theres more to that than u might think....and ur right...it could definitely be characterized as poor sportsmanship...and giving a youngster a timeout to help him learn to appreciate the gravity of the situation...you might say this is a key, since this is done early in a persons life to hopefully mold him into a person that doesnt continue that sort of behavior as he goes on in life...and yes...if that youngster doesnt respond in the right way-there are instances where that player might be removed....however...i would tell u that this rarely, and i do mean rarely ever happens...because the whole idea is to train, educate, and make that person better....simply casting that problem aside doesnt do the individual much good or the society that he then is cast into....

                  as far as it being criminal activity.....possibly...once again...in rare instances....though this comment strikes me as being a bit embellished in order to drive home the thought of just how despicable some of his actions are....breaking things and cheap shots, in rare instances could be criminal though highly unlikely....breaking plays...hardly criminal activity...proper behavior?? nope...but then again...i doubt there is an nba player alive that hasnt/doesnt break a play....once again i think this comment really points to a deeper issue and is much more about the behavioral pattern versus the actual act and whether its criminal like or not...
                  ill once again say....his behavior issues that uve brought up and others that u havent are simply unacceptable...



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

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

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

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

                  Ok, I've gone off track here. Let me see if I can save some of this.
                  bad analogy...but then u basically say as much by the disclaimer 'I'm just trying to point out that being competative does not give you an excuse for bad behavior.'

                  which i would note , is already developing into somewhat of a noteable pattern..

                  as far as the incident itself goes....i always have a major problem when we decide why people do things....that we know what other people are thinking....in this case what a basketball player is thinking in the middle of a game....we simply cant know that...we may think we know that...but we dont...

                  and i would tell u that the premise i mentioned earlier comes back into play here again...if...and i do mean if...someone doesnt like someone...are we gonna be very objective in what we might THINK that player is thinking....

                  the whole notion to know why ron or any other player or human being does a certain act without having any knowledge of that situation other than what we are watching...well....i think u can begin to see where im going with this...as others have already done....a person who LIKES ron artest would probably have a much different take on what happened....

                  heres my take on it....its the sort of play that happens in the NBA...none of us know why each specific instance takes place....you urself have said dale does things with an enforcer mentality sometimes...in the end its not really relevant why it takes place...not really-unless ur wanting to somehow make it relevant to another argument u want to validate-in this case not liking ron artest....it happens and there are rules in place regarding what will happen if this sort of action takes place...and ron, like many players(some of which u do like-dale davis, brad miller) have been disciplined for these sorts of actions....

                  but these actions alone shouldnt be cause to condemn a player, because if so, ron would have a lot of company, a personal favorite or 2 of urs that i just mentioned would be joining him....

                  and not that i should do this...but if brad miller does the same thing(and he has-dont shoot me im a purdue fan as well as a brad miller fan)to ak47 that ron did, how would u react??? nevermind...i only try to make the poiint that our personal feelings and mindset go along way in determing how we view these things....

                  i will say this....if ur looking for reasons to not like ron artest...it wont be hard...i dont think the one that u just mentioned is a very good one....but there are many others that i would wholeheartedly agree with u on....ron has given anyone who wants to not like him more than enuff ammunition...no question...jay put up a list that im sure has been used quite often-plane issues-other things that we will get into more down this posts line...suffice it to say...i have zero problem believing theres not ample evidence to support rons behavior being very very inexcusable at times..



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

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

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

                  Ok that takes care of a lot of that, on here anyway, I sometimes try & compensate for the over abundance of praise for him. I'm not just being contrarian for no reason however because I truely am not a fan of his.
                  ahhhhhhhhh....the fan part of all of this....very, very intriquing part to this whole drama....and im gonna go much more in detail about some of this in my aforementioned piece im gonna do regarding the FAN....

                  there are a couple of types of fans....this is a pacers fan site...not a ron artest fan site...not a jo fan site...not a rasheed wallace fan site....

                  and theres a certain part of me that believes a lot of what u say regarding ron and his behavior would be much more relevant(not to say its irrelevant) if this were a strictly ron artest fan site....but its not....yes...ron plays for the pacers...but i cant speak for u...but im a PACERS fan first and foremost...not a fan of any player first....i love dale davis...already said so...i loved darnell hillman....when some of these players we love go other places, we still follow them because we are a fan of that player....it only stands to reason we probably wont love or be fans of every player on the team....however, i do feel a certain obligation(many will disagree, i know) regarding the players i dont care for....like austin for one...

                  the issue then becomes quite similar to a pistons fan coming to the pacers board-as which some do....its a confrontation waiting to happen...its really unavoidable....and sooner or later it will happen if two people are talking and one likes anything and one doesnt...
                  the interesting dynamic to all of this is when u have fans of the same team who have differing viewpoints of the same player....which too, is unavoidable....you loved brad miller from what i can tell...u love david harrison from what i can tell...u love dale davis from what i can tell...well all it takes is one person to not agree...and they will have their own reasons which they feel are just as valid as u do for liking or disliking....

                  u bring up sheed....sheed has a huge following...and a huge group of 'haters' as well....and the more controversial a player or human being is, the more passionate that debate between lovers and haters can be....but lets not shy away from the real issue...

                  sheed has, like artest, done many things that are simply reprehensible....and now i will interject a new piece of info....there is hardly a player in the nba or a human being in general that hasnt....i could give u a list of things reggie miller has done that u could say the same thing about....but u already probably know them....and then a new debate takes place...that they arent as bad..or this...or that...it doesnt matter...its once againn about the mindset u go into something with....

                  and u made it clear...ur not a fan of artest...and we know...and thats very very telliing...because what it says is...really...he will never get the benefit of the doubt from u....that goes true in anything in life....if we dont like something....we are as much sayiing we are prejudiced towards that subject....im sorry if u dont like hearing that...but thats the way that it is...and i think u know it....we can say that though we dont like something we can be objective.....hmmmmm....now just how hypocritical and naive is that statement when u really stop and look at it....

                  the only other thing i would like to emphasize is this....whether its the team or the teams fans....any time something becomes more about the player than the team...theres gonna be a problem...which is what many of u that have a certain disdain for ron are constantly harping on-he brings down the team with his actions....well the same goes true on this board....and while its unavoidable to talk about individual players....its also not gonna be very constructive for the team if certain dislikes regarding certain players keep becoming the focal point-whether in the locker room or on this board....

                  i hear u though...loud and clear...ur not a fan of rons...and u have a lot of reasons why-all related to his behavior....

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                    Or that he's got so many problems that he never gets back to the previous problems.
                    Caught in my own web.


                    Jay, and Peck and DD for that matter, I've got a hypothetical question for you and it's out of me just wondering, I'm not looking to hold it against you if everything shakes out. How many years of near perfect behavior does it take to make you quit holding your breath in regards to Ron, if ever? I'll be perfectly honest, when it comes to Ben Wallace I don't care what he does, I'm ALWAYS going to dislike him even if he forsome God forsaken reason becomes a Pacer. Would there ever be a time that you support him on an individual level, instead of a Pacer level, I guess is what I'm really asking?
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                      Fortaz....

                      I'm at work right now so I will not be able to give you a thought out response to what you are saying right now. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you, so please keep putting down your thoughts on this & I will get back to you tonight when I get home.

                      You'll see me on here throuthout the day with shorter posts but I'm not even gonna try right now responding to these because short thought on my part aren't going to work for me.

                      Keep'em coming & I'll get back to you.


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

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                        Originally posted by Since86
                        Caught in my own web.


                        Jay, and Peck and DD for that matter, I've got a hypothetical question for you and it's out of me just wondering, I'm not looking to hold it against you if everything shakes out. How many years of near perfect behavior does it take to make you quit holding your breath in regards to Ron, if ever? I'll be perfectly honest, when it comes to Ben Wallace I don't care what he does, I'm ALWAYS going to dislike him even if he forsome God forsaken reason becomes a Pacer. Would there ever be a time that you support him on an individual level, instead of a Pacer level, I guess is what I'm really asking?
                        The Diamond one will be gone for the next two weeks so he won't be able to respond.

                        As to me?

                        I'll be honest I don't know when it would be for me to not "hold my breath" with him.

                        But I'll give you this. If he can give me one solid year of no disruptions & by that I mean team disruptions as well as on court disruptions then I'll back way down.

                        But I'll still be cautious.

                        What choice do I have? If the team either can't or won't trade him then that pretty much sticks me with hoping that he changes.


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

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                          Originally posted by Peck
                          Fortaz....

                          I'm at work right now so I will not be able to give you a thought out response to what you are saying right now. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you, so please keep putting down your thoughts on this & I will get back to you tonight when I get home.

                          You'll see me on here throuthout the day with shorter posts but I'm not even gonna try right now responding to these because short thought on my part aren't going to work for me.

                          Keep'em coming & I'll get back to you.
                          trust me...i understand....look forward to it...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                            Originally posted by Since86
                            Caught in my own web.


                            Jay, and Peck and DD for that matter, I've got a hypothetical question for you and it's out of me just wondering, I'm not looking to hold it against you if everything shakes out. How many years of near perfect behavior does it take to make you quit holding your breath in regards to Ron, if ever? I'll be perfectly honest, when it comes to Ben Wallace I don't care what he does, I'm ALWAYS going to dislike him even if he forsome God forsaken reason becomes a Pacer. Would there ever be a time that you support him on an individual level, instead of a Pacer level, I guess is what I'm really asking?
                            I'd like to believe that - if given a fresh start somewhere else - Ron could get it turned around. He's teased us before. In fact, publicly he looked to be really close to getting it during the 2003-04 season, but there were always rumors that it wasn't so good behind the scenes even when the Pacers were winning and then it all came crashing back to earth in the playoffs and continued to get worse throughout the offseason and the first month of this season.

                            I used to say that if he went an entire season with maturity and composure (I'm not even talking about flagrants, because those are going to happen from time-to-time) that I'd at least be convinced he was 'capable' of getting it.

                            I think that's about right - if he can go from training camp through the end of the season without causing any major disruptions and a negligible number of minor disruptions (both publicly and behind the scenes) then I'll start to lighten up on him. But I'll admit that there are also days when I think it will take him at least five seasons without a disruption to earn my trust.

                            I just think there's a 0.000000000% chance that we'll ever have to worry about it.
                            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


                            • #44
                              Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                              I didn't even expect the one year thing. I expected atleast two minimium, and I'm even labeled as an 'apologist' geez I hate that word.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                                Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                                I'd like to believe that - if given a fresh start somewhere else - Ron could get it turned around. He's teased us before. In fact, publicly he looked to be really close to getting it during the 2003-04 season, but there were always rumors that it wasn't so good behind the scenes even when the Pacers were winning and then it all came crashing back to earth in the playoffs and continued to get worse throughout the offseason and the first month of this season.

                                I used to say that if he went an entire season with maturity and composure (I'm not even talking about flagrants, because those are going to happen from time-to-time) that I'd at least be convinced he was 'capable' of getting it.

                                I think that's about right - if he can go from training camp through the end of the season without causing any major disruptions and a negligible number of minor disruptions (both publicly and behind the scenes) then I'll start to lighten up on him. But I'll admit that there are also days when I think it will take him at least five seasons without a disruption to earn my trust.

                                I just think there's a 0.000000000% chance that we'll ever have to worry about it.
                                Out of curiousity, would this be for any player, or just Ron? For example, say like Rasheed came here and pulled consistantly all of his antics from Portland. If he says he would quit, would you still hold the same standard you do for Ron, or is Ron just that bad of a case for you?
                                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