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

Peter Vescey says J.O threw security over the scorers table

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Peter Vescey says J.O threw security over the scorers table

    J.O's suspension does not seem right. here is a possible explanation

    http://www.nypost.com/sports/32117.htm

    WHY DAVID WAS SO STERN





    November 23, 2004 --
    UNLIKE David Stern, who's clever enough to sift through and digest the countless number of confrontations, machinations, nuances and interrogations relevant to the scariest NBA scene he confesses to have ever witnessed and impart a groundbreaking decision within 36 hours, my investigation regarding Friday night's sickening fight isn't nearly completed.

    In fact, the momentous majority-of-one historic ruling by the commissioner only serves to extend, expand and complicate it.

    What's a pharaoh to do? Extreme wrongdoing dictates extreme measures. I understand that. Public disgrace demands public floggings, acts of contrition and prompt acceptance of responsibility (much obliged, David) in the face of public outrage and media condemnation.

    Justice must be done. And it needed to be done rapidly, before the lawsuits (Ron Artest was served with one civil complaint yesterday, I'm informed) and indictments (the Oakland County, Mich., prosecutor would prefer to let things die in light of only two minor injuries, say sources) had a chance to pile up. I understand that, too.

    At the same time, the league's image must also be resuscitated. Advertisers and audiences must be reassured of the product and their safety. The excruciating collision between perception and reality must be untangled unfalteringly and conditions upgraded to ensure they never meet head-on again.

    If that means forcefully turning against the players and feeding an extra Pacer or two to mass hysteria, who's about to argue Stern's position in this Screech Owl climate other than the Players' Association and its union members?

    If that means an entire organization must pay through the gills for the sins of several of its favorite sons that's the price, it appears, for degrading the whole league and subjecting its constituency to derision and denouncement.

    Almost everybody agrees Artest deserves most of what he got (does his season ban include the playoffs?).

    Almost everyone also agrees Stephen Jackson earned the wrath of Stern by trailing Artest into the crowd.



    Still, a 30-game sentence seems mighty merciless. Last time a crazed player (Vernon Maxwell) veered into the stands to accost a fanatic he got 10 games. Tripling that amount for a guy not known as a desperado or having repeated run-ins with authority makes me suspect Stern caved in to his own emotions as well as public pressure.

    Jermaine O'Neal's 25-game punishment, on the surface, is just plain preposterous. Obviously, I don't come close to getting this one. Why such a ruthless stance for somebody who didn't go into the stands, though we're told he tried, for what purpose nobody will ever know? What was taken into account?

    Was O'Neal suspended for nailing that one deranged stump who came onto the court with his homey to confront (not comfort) Artest and paid the appropriate price? First compliments of Artest, then Anthony Johnson, who slipped and fell, and finally from O'Neal, who came across the court to protect Johnson and slid (he might've killed the guy otherwise) just before delivering the knockout punch?

    If players are stringently forbidden to break into the stands (thank goodness this was Auburn Hills and not Joe Louis Arena; Artest and Jackson would've been swallowed up, never to be seen again), it has to work both ways. Once the fans come on the court they're fair game to be beaten to a pulp by players or security. Lord knows nothing happens to them (probation for everybody) once the legal system springs into inaction.

    Who knows their insanity quotient? Who knows what they might be packing? O'Neal, whose account and description of events remain unheard of the league on advice of counsel, had every right to coldcock the miscreant, it says here. He should've been commended, not suspended.

    Why is it the other way around? More significant, how come Johnson got five games for hitting the miscreant and O'Neal got 25 for the same act?

    From what I can gather, it's all of the above; trying to get into the stands and fast-breaking across court to hit the guy as he was getting up. In addition, he cuffed a red-shirted security guard who was trying to restrain him and tossed him over the scorer's table.

    How, pray tell, was O'Neal supposed to know that some guy wearing a red (or blue) shirt is security? Especially in his frenetic state of mind when people and things are coming at him from all angles? He's not; that's the point. That's why such free-for-all (with fans and foe) are so inhumanly dangerous.

    That's why they must not happen again. That's why Stern's verdicts were so ruthlessly unsympathetic. That's why his message is so clear: Take part in a barroom-like brawl and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^you get the group surcharge, not the group discount.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Peter Vescey says J.O threw security over the scorers table

    Originally posted by Unclebuck
    More significant, how come Johnson got five games for hitting the miscreant and O'Neal got 25 for the same act?
    I think this is perhaps one of the most important questions that needs to be addressed. As was stated in another thread, Stern's assumption that Jermaine was wanting to smoke people in the stands does not hold up well, and is unfair to say the least.

    You can make assumptions all day long. Rip Hamilton wanted to fight in the stands? Ben Wallace wanted to beat the living **** out of Ron on the court?

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Peter Vescey says J.O threw security over the scorers table

      Originally posted by Unclebuck
      J.O's suspension does not seem right. here is a possible explanation

      http://www.nypost.com/sports/32117.htm

      WHY DAVID WAS SO STERN

      In addition, he cuffed a red-shirted security guard who was trying to restrain him and tossed him over the scorer's table.

      How, pray tell, was O'Neal supposed to know that some guy wearing a red (or blue) shirt is security? Especially in his frenetic state of mind when people and things are coming at him from all angles? He's not; that's the point. That's why such free-for-all (with fans and foe) are so inhumanly dangerous.

      Or, some security guards at that moment were not acting like they were trying to protect the Pacers, they could be protecting the fans on the court AGAINST the Pacers specifically Ron.

      That was what frightened JO and Ron and whichever Pacer who sensed that.

      It was reported a security guard was pointing pepperspray at Ron when he was on the court.

      My bet is some fans on the court was shouting "he's crazy" then

      Pacers/Simons should appeal for JO, but only for him.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Peter Vescey says J.O threw security over the scorers table

        IMO, Stern left JO's punishment open for negotiation. This is where he's willing to compromise - Ron and SJax could've easily received and justifiable received worse punishments so there's almost no point in appealing those.

        Has anyone started the FREE JERMAINE O'NEAL website/ campaign?
        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

        • #5
          Re: Peter Vescey says J.O threw security over the scorers table

          Originally posted by mmxx
          It was reported a security guard was pointing pepperspray at Ron when he was on the court.
          ESPN has shown this part of the incident repeatedly - this is when Chuck Person comes rushing in to convince them that he's got Ron under control and that he'll escort him out of the playing area. Then Chuck and Reggie cover up Ron and head into the firestorm together. I actually like that image of togetherness. Two of the greatest Pacers players in history giving Ron a hands-on illustration of what it actually means to be a teammate.
          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

          • #6
            Re: Peter Vescey says J.O threw security over the scorers table

            I think the Pacers and the NBA PA should try to work something out with Stern. We'll drop all appeals, if you knock 10 games off J.O's suspension

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Peter Vescey says J.O threw security over the scorers table

              I did not realize there was a security person around close enough to throw.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Peter Vescey says J.O threw security over the scorers table

                It seems Stern is only concerned with punishing the players that effect the Pacers future the most. JO gets 20 more games for the same thing Johnson did, who's more important to the team, duh. Harrison may have hit someone too, who's more important to the team, duh. Stern has it in for the Pacers IMO.
                "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                Comment

                Previous template Next
                Working...
                X