Tweet
Re: THE FIGHT IS ON.
David Stern -- the Jewish Hitler 
Originally posted by PaCeRs31
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.
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
-
-
Re: THE FIGHT IS ON.
Speaking of suing the league......Brian Cox (former football player and hothead) said that he sued the NFL for not protecting the players sufficiently when he was hit with batteries thrown by fans during a football game. He said he won the lawsuit so Ron may have a similar course of action.
Comment
-
Re: THE FIGHT IS ON.
From the Sports guy Bill Simmons on page 2. He's on both sides of the fence but here are his positives.
5. If you watch the game -- which has already earned coveted "Save until I delete" status on my TiVo, by the way -- two plays led to Artest's hard foul. With 6:43 remaining, Rip Hamilton threw a cheapshot elbow into Jamaal Tinsley's back after a defensive rebound (they called a foul as the Pacers bench erupted). That could have been a flagrant since it looked like Hamilton went out of his way to belt him. And with 1:25 remaining, down by 11 points, Wallace knocked Artest into the basket support while blocking his layup -- from the camera angle, you can't tell if it's a foul or not. So if you're playing the "Why was Artest fouling Wallace with such a big lead?" card, the play wasn't much different than Wallace's block. He just got more of a piece of him.
O'Neal (25 games) -- This was the one that bothered me. On one of the Detroit TV websites, they have a clip of Artest fighting those two guys in front of the Pistons bench -- the situation was a little more dire than it seemed on the ESPN replays. When O'Neal landed his Kermit Washington punch, from the Detroit TV replay, it looked like that guy was getting up to charge Artest again before O'Neal belted him. More importantly, what were they doing on the floor? Doesn't that make them fair game? By all accounts, O'Neal is one of the best guys in the league -- he does a ton of stuff for his community, wins awards, all that stuff. The fact that O'Neal, out of anyone, was so upset out there shows how dangerous it was. I bet this suspension gets knocked down.
Wallace (6 games) -- Seems a little low. Wallace kept escalating the incident by trying to get to Artest, leading to the blue cup getting thrown from the stands. If you're making an example out of Artest, make one out of Wallace -- none of this would have happened if he didn't keep pouring gasoline on the fire.
(Intriguing note on Wallace: One of his posse members was the huge guy who attacked Fred Jones from behind. During the initial altercation, you can see the guy lurking behind Artest as Artest lies on the scorer's table, almost like he's ready to jump him. You can also see him consoling Wallace's kids after the fact.)
Pistons fans (no games) -- Because the Detroit fans threw all that stuff on the court, I would have suspended the Pistons from selling beer for 60 days. There has to be SOME accountability there. I would fine them for not having enough security on hand for the first Pistons-Pacers game of the season -- maybe the toughest rivalry in the league right now other than Minnesota-Denver -- and I would fine the Pistons CEO for unveiling the "He was asking for it" defense about Artest (just a sleazy thing to do).
Comment
-
Re: THE FIGHT IS ON.
Pacers were justified in going after fans
NBA encourages rowdy fans butdoes nothing when it goes too far
COMMENTARY
By Michael Ventre
NBCSports.com contributor
Updated: 1:19 p.m. ET Nov. 22, 2004
O.K., so he’s a knucklehead whose actions are almost impossible to defend.
But I’m going to give it a try anyway.
A Native American proverb states, “Don’t judge a man unless you’ve walked a mile in his shoes.” Doing so in Artest’s case may result in severe damage to one’s psychological well-being, but it’s necessary in order to explain why the Indiana Pacers’ nutbag had some justification for his offenses in the now-historic melee that earned him a suspension for the rest of the season — which, including time served (Saturday’s loss against Orlando) amounts to 73 games, plus playoffs — from an image-obsessed NBA.
If you noticed anything amid the flying beer cups and overweight Pistons fans attempting to fight world-class athletes, you should admit that Artest did not start the ruckus, and in fact, sought to remove himself from it.
Artest fouled Ben Wallace hard in the final minute of the Pacers’ win over the Pistons Friday night, but it was nothing out of the ordinary. Yet Wallace completely overreacted, shoving Artest hard and thereby instigating the drunken dullards in the seats. Wallace admitted he was wrong and even attempted to contact Artest afterward to apologize.
After the benches emptied and players milled around with typical but harmless post-incident posturing, Artest tried to remove himself from conflict and controversy by lying on the scorer’s table. Everything would have been fine if not for the actions of a few beer-guzzling louts who couldn’t leave well enough alone.
One of the aforementioned cretins hurled a cup of beer at Artest, causing him to jump off the table and rush into the seats, fists flailing.
I would have done the exact same thing.
I’m not proud of it. I don’t think violence is the answer. But again, walking a mile in Artest’s shoes? When all I did was foul someone hard, and Wallace blew his cool, instigating a brouhaha? When I’m trying to stay out of trouble, and someone from the stands assaults me? When the league is doing almost nothing to protect players from unruly fans?
You’re damn right I go into the stands, regardless of how much it may eventually cost me.
And if I’m in the shoes of Stephen Jackson, or Jermaine O’Neal, and I see one of my teammates being beaten up? I go up and help.
Now here’s a key point that should not be ignored.
The NBA takes a strident and unflinching stance on the issue of players going into the stands. No ifs, ands or buts. It is absolutely inexcusable, it says.
But David Stern and his minions make it sound as though there is a massive divide between the players on the court and the fans in the seats. In actuality, fans are only a few feet away. And that’s by design.
The league has a major selling point for the fans’ access to the action, as opposed to the arms-length arrangements in baseball, football and hockey. The clubs sell tickets at exorbitant rates just so beer-swilling jerks can sit close to the players and, at the very least, make vile comments. And at the very worst, inject themselves into the fray.
I don’t know if concession stands at the Palace of Auburn Hills shut off beer sales after the third quarter, like some venues. But it seems to me that there was no shortage of giant cups of brew in that game's final minute, judging by how much was thrown at players and team personnel.
The NBA condones the heavy drinking. It requires a skeleton crew of security men at its events. It invites fans to get as close to the action as possible. And then it breaks out the soapbox when the powderkeg goes off.
Artest and the other players certainly deserve suspensions. But the NBA’s hypocrisy is laughable. Stern and the league are as culpable as anyone.
Stern has an easy target in Artest, who recently caused an uproar when he cluelessly asked for time off from basketball so he could promote his R&B album. Stern views him as the Latrell Sprewell of the 21st century, someone he can demonize as ‘The Player Who Doesn’t Get It’.
But Sprewell was different. He attacked then-Warriors coach P.J. Carlesimo after verbal provocation. And after he did, he had plenty of time to calm down. Yet he attacked a second time.
Artest was physically assaulted. His response was self-defense, even though it may not fit the classic definition.
To me, self-defense is this: If you attack me, I’m going to attack you back.
I bring up the Sprewell example because Artest’s suspension is Sprewell-esque. That ban was originally 82 games, but was later pared down to 68 by an arbitrator. So is the league suggesting that what Artest did is worse than what Sprewell did? Or is this just a case of the NBA covering its behind in the interests of polishing an image and keeping the revenue stream flowing?
The league professes a zero-tolerance policy on players going after fans in the stands. With these penalties — Jackson got 30 games and O’Neal 20 games, among others — it pretends to be doing the right thing.
Wrong.
What the league is doing is protecting the cash cow. It’s siding with the buying public against the players. It’s protecting itself against litigation by making believe that the problem is the players, and the problem is being dealt with. Yet by taking that approach, it is giving tacit approval to boorish actions by its customers in the future.
I’m not saying the NBA is condoning violence by the fans. I’m not suggesting it doesn’t want to see certain fans prosecuted for their actions in that brawl.
But the unusually heavy suspensions will serve as a smokescreen to obscure the league’s own responsibility here. What do you think are the chances that fans will be seated farther away from the action now on, which would discourage any such future incidents? How likely do you think it is that the league will insist beer sales be severely limited at its arenas, or discontinued altogether? What is the likelihood that security forces will be doubled from now on at all NBA games?
I have the answer for you: The status quo will remain in effect, because it’s easier to blame a small handful of wealthy, high-profile NBA players who can afford the fines and suspensions than it is to tackle the root causes of the problem.
This whole situation is embarrassing and appalling. The brawl was ugly, too.Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.Comment
-
Re: THE FIGHT IS ON.
I personally like the way Rick Carlisle put Dave Calabro in his place today at the news conference when he asked if Ron Artest was going to be fired. Rick told him that he didn't think it was an appropriate question to ask.
Comment
-
Re: THE FIGHT IS ON.
Removed this idiot's posting of the fan's info, again
[edit=12=1101175205][/edit]Comment
-
Re: THE FIGHT IS ON.
Some more people supporting Artest defending himself.
Wes Wilcox, advance scout for the Cavaliers:
"That beer cup came right over my shoulder," Wilcox said. "It made dead contact with Artest's chest. He came right over me to get that guy. Then little fires started. I couldn't go anywhere because players were [fighting] to my right and fans were [fighting] to my left."
Artest went into the stands swinging and so did several other players.
"During all of this, a fan picked up a chair by me, and I had to take it from him," Wilcox said. "I didn't realize how crazy things were until I saw the replay on TV. When you're in it, you don't know how wild it is. But [in my opinion] Artest did a good job of keeping his composure."
---------------------------------------------------
"You can say whatever you want, but when you start throwing stuff, it's a matter of protecting yourself." -- the Nets' Richard Jefferson
"You can talk as bad as you want to a dog, but if you kick it and keep kicking it, sooner or later the dog is going to fight back. That's just human reaction." -- Alonzo Mourning, who is the vice president of the NBA Players Association
"When the fans start throwing things, (they) put lives in danger," Mourning said. "And that's unfortunate. Especially when Ron Artest was making a concerted effort to stay out of harm's way. He did. He didn't retaliate from Ben, he stepped back. ... And what sparked the rest of the confusion was that one fan just so happened to throw that drink."
"Last season, the Knicks complained to the Pistons about the spotty security near their bench, where fans constantly taunt the players with profanity. "One of the worst places in the league," said one Knicks official.
"It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."
----------------- Reggie MillerComment
-
Re: THE FIGHT IS ON.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...yhoo&type=lgns
Crossing the line
by Steve Kerr, Yahoo! Sports
November 20, 2004
Until the cup was thrown, it was business as usual in Auburn Hills.
An intense, physical basketball game; a hard foul by Ron Artest – in retaliation for a hard Ben Wallace foul a minute earlier; an angry response from Wallace; a pushing match, followed by the usual grabbing, holding and yelling as coaches and officials attempted to gain control of the situation. NBA fans have witnessed scenes like this a thousand times before.
It should have stopped there, and it would have – if a stupid fan hadn't thrown a cup at Artest, hitting him in the face.
Players are forced to endure verbal taunting all the time in sports. I once warmed up for a game at Arizona State University while two inebriated fans taunted me about the death of my father. I've had teammates endure all kinds of ugly insults, threats and barbs.
But there has always been an uneasy understanding between these idiotic fans and players, that a so-called line wouldn't be crossed. Verbal assaults, ugly as they may be, were to be tolerated.Any physical acts however were off limits.
So when Artest was hit in the face by the cup, all bets were off. The line had been crossed, and Artest's response was understandable, if regrettable.
Imagine what any of us would do if a person showed up to our workplace, taunted us and then threw a beer in our face? How many of us would show any restraint at all?
Yes, Artest snapped, and he faces a major suspension from the NBA. So do Stephen Jackson and Jermaine O'Neal, who threw multiple punches at fans. Ben Wallace will be penalized for initiating the altercation. David Stern has to send a message to NBA players that under no circumstances will they be allowed to enter the stands to confront taunting fans, evenin ugly environments like the one in Detroit on Friday night. I expect suspensions of up to 15 games for each of the three Pacers involved.
That said, I hope that each and every fan involved with the fight will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The fans provoked the fight, not the players. They deserve major punishment. Law enforcement officials have plenty of footage that will implicate dozens of fans guilty of instigating the brawl.
Perhaps the most disturbing shot was seeing dozens of fans showering Pacer players and coaches with popcorn, beer, cups – anything they could get their hands on as the team exited the floor. The mob mentality at that point was incredibly ugly.
Alcohol almost certainly played a role in this brawl, so I expect the league to enact rules that prohibit its sale, perhaps in the second half of games. But the bottom line is that civil behavior must prevail next time this sort of thing becomes a possibility. Fans and players alike must show restraint, even as emotions run high and the intensity of a big game boils over.
Fans cannot under any circumstances throw anything on the floor. And players, in turn, can't respond. I expect that both the NBA and Auburn Hills police will come down hard on the participants to make sure an ugly incident like this doesn't happen again.
"Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"Comment
-
Re: THE FIGHT IS ON.
Originally posted by waterjater
I found this a bit strange... why didn't Stern order the pistons to play some homegames without any fans. That's what they do in Europe. This way the fans will get some kind of punishment.
I don't think that the NBA will stop the selling of beer. They earn a lot of money this way.. remember it's also callled the national money association.
We found out that Stern is a Pistons fanNot an Anders Fogh Rasmussen fanComment
-
Comment
-
Re: THE FIGHT IS ON.
Paul Pierce supports Ron Artest despite being the guy who probably has taken the most of Ron's, uh, tougher defensive performances... Pierce said he would buy a copy of the Allure compact disc that Artest produced as a show of support. "Yeah, I think I'll get it now," he said. "He needs support somewhere, because the NBA's not showing it."
In addition to that, Skip Bayliss wrote a great article on the brawl that I posted in its own thread: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...bayless/041124Comment
-
Re: THE FIGHT IS ON.
I'd try something similar but not quite the same. I'd have the Pistons play two home games at UM and two at Mich State in front of college fans and donate the proceeds to the schools. Some Det. fans will get in but if you give pref to the season ticket holders and students of both schools it won't be many - and students know how to cheer hard and (generally) not make asses of themselves.Originally posted by flying dutchman
Edit: There may be some legal reasons regarding season tix that makes that impossible - or maybe Stern's just candying out.The poster formerly known as RimfireComment
-
Re: THE FIGHT IS ON.
Are those dime bags?Originally posted by btowncoltThe poster formerly known as RimfireComment
-
Re: THE FIGHT IS ON.
more on the topic of this thread, something it looks most people missed:
"I think David Stern is trying his best to preserve the integrity of the game and his industry, but due process must be honored, and all the mitigating factors must be included on a final decision," said Jesse Jackson, who said he spoke with Stern by telephone on Monday.So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.
If you've done 6 impossible things today?
Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!
Comment
-
Re: THE FIGHT IS ON.
From
Q & A :
Question: If throwing a drink in someone's face is assault and battery, then wouldn't aggressively shoving your hands into someone's neck and face be considered the same? The prosecutor says the fan "started" it all, but didn't this all "start" with the outward assault on Ron Artest by Ben Wallace? How come he wasn't charged? Do you get a free pass if you're on a playing field to assault others? (Scott from Suttons Bay, Mich.)
Answer: Another very good question. I would guess the prosecutor was ruling on the brawl itself and taking into account that Artest would never have gone into the stands if a drink hadn't been thrown at him. Also, Artest wasn't injured by Wallace.
It's interesting to see how public opinion has emerged now that time has passed and the issue can be reviewed more objectively. It's also interesting that the media either hasn't caught up to public opinion or happens to disagree with it. Certainly some fans still believe Artest is more to blame than anyone, but I sense that the widespread opinion among the general public is that he got a bad deal.
The prosecutor's ruling was direct rebuttal of David Stern's, I believe. While Stern acted out of anger, after having viewed the replays a thousand times (and no doubt worrying about what the league's sponsors were thinking), the prosecutor took a cooler and more legal approach.So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.
If you've done 6 impossible things today?
Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!
Comment
Comment