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

IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

    This week
    VOL. 25 NO. 38, NOVEMBER 29-DEC. 5, 2004

    Pacers' next fight? Damage control
    Team faces PR battle to keep fans, sponsors
    By Anthony Schoettle
    IBJ Reporter

    What do you think of the response of the Pacers organization to the episode in Detroit?
    Click here to join IBJ's disussion forum.

    Surveying the damage inflicted by the Nov. 19 melee in Detroit to the Indiana Pacers' image, prospects for a championship, and potentially the NBA team's bottom line, team officials had one goal: perseverance.

    "We owe that much to our players, our fans and our community," co-owner Herb Simon concluded in a statement Nov. 21.

    There is much to mend in the relationship between those who consume the Pacers' entertainment and those who provide it after the team's three leading players waded into the stands at The Palace in Auburn Hills, Mich., and fought with fans. NBA Commissioner David Stern dealt those players the harshest non-drug-related penalties in league history.

    "This is a brutally tough marketing challenge," said Richard Sheehan, a University of Notre Dame economist and author of "Keeping Score: The Economics of Big-Time Sports."

    "I think the Pacers as a franchise this year are simply screwed," he said. "How in the world do you market this to the fan?"

    For a team with championship aspirations and a fast start, the turn of events dismayed fans and riled pundits across the country. An already-injury-depleted lineup meant just six players were available for the Nov. 20 game, which the Pacers narrowly lost.

    Three days later, the team handily defeated the Boston Celtics at Conseco Fieldhouse, but still faced a daunting schedule with Ron Artest, who led the charge into the stands, out for the remainder of the season. All-star Jermaine O'Neal and newcomer Stephen Jackson are out until mid-January.

    "Going into this with the idea of just mitigating the damage is a flawed strategy. They have to take control of the situation and turn it into a positive" by taking more responsibility and being more upfront with fans, observed Dean Bonham, former Denver Nuggets president and founder of Colorado sports marketing firm The Bonham Group.

    Certainly, the franchise has suffered a massive public relations black eye that could cost more than $1.5 million in lost ticket revenue and another $2 million in lost concession, parking and merchandise sales this season alone, sports business experts estimated.

    NBA officials said the Pacers can't count on realizing any savings from players suspended without pay. Although league officials Nov. 24 were still trying to determine where the $11.8 million from suspended Pacers players' salaries would go, it won't end up in the team's coffers. The league will probably split the money among a number of causes, anti-violence charities among them.

    For now, Pacers pillar sponsors such as Bank One and Sport Graphics have vowed to stay with the team, but several sponsors said they'll be watching closely how the team handles the situation in the weeks to come. The effects, as well as the event, are unprecedented.

    "I'm not sure people understand the enormity of this situation," said Randy Schwoerer, president of Schwoerer & Associates, a local sports and marketing consultancy. "The Pacers are already marketing around this; you can see that by their public statements.

    "I think players, coaches and executives need to be very, very careful here," he added. "This is already a defining moment in the team's history. How dark the moment is may depend largely on how they respond to this crisis."

    While there's a groundswell of local support for the Pacers, detractors also are coming forward. Some fans who own season tickets and other ticket packages say they are not getting the product they purchased.

    If the team can't maintain its winning ways, sports marketers said, the grumbling will become much louder.

    "Certainly, there's no guarantee issued with these tickets and players do get injured," said Milton Thompson, president of Grand Slam Cos., a local sports marketing firm. "But people bought their tickets thinking the Pacers would be competing for an NBA championship. And to the extent that the players' absence is due to behavior that the team should have been able to control, that is a different scenario."

    Emergency preparedness

    Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh wasted little time pulling together the organization's legal team and public relations personnel immediately following the incident.

    But Walsh wasn't alone in his effort. This nightmare was so real, and the ramifications loomed so large, normally hands-off owners Herb and Mel Simon also quickly became involved, sources close to the team said.

    "The Simons are sharp businessmen," said Mark Rosentraub, a former IUPUI dean and author of "Major League Losers," a book about professional sports operations. "They understand what's at stake."

    The team's tactical response was led by a statement released late Nov. 21 by Herb Simon, within hours of Stern's announcement that Artest would be suspended for the remainder of the season, Jackson would be lost for 30 games, and O'Neal would be out for 25.

    "While we do not condone some of the actions of the players involved, we do consider the action taken Sunday by the National Basketball Association to be unprecedented and inappropriate based on the circumstances," Simon said in the statement. "We believe that there was a rush to judgment and not enough opportunity for all sides to be heard."

    The next day, Pacers Coach Rick Carlisle--along with players Reggie Miller, who received a one-game suspension for his part in the melee, and Austin Croshere--were brought in for a carefully orchestrated press conference. Walsh and Larry Bird, president of basketball operations, appeared immediately afterward in a separate press conference.

    Later that day, the team issued statements from Artest, O'Neal and Jackson.

    Meanwhile, Pacers officials were phoning and faxing their best season-ticket holders, suite holders and sponsors to reassure them of the team's commitment to winning games.

    Tactical error?

    Ernie Reno, a crisis communication specialist and president of locally based Avatar Communications Group, was not impressed by the Pacers' initial moves. With legal and marketing issues so tightly wound, any misstep could cost millions in lost fan and sponsor loyalty, in addition to lawsuits already being filed in Michigan courts.

    "The response to this episode on the part of the Pacers represents a measurable lack of planning," Reno said. "The most glaring error in judgment that I perceived is the failure, by all parties involved, to accept their level of responsibility.

    "The Pacers, along with the NBA and Detroit Pistons, are trying to spin this in their own way," he added. "The public will eventually see through it and all parties will have a bigger problem."

    The Pacers may not value Reno's opinion on crisis management, but they'll likely be concerned about what he says as an avid sports fan and father. It's unlikely he will take his family to another Pacers game.

    Fans' drunkenness, swearing and ranting are too prevalent at professional sports, he said, including at the Fieldhouse.

    "It isn't just me saying this; it's many of my friends who have families," Reno said. "I can no longer justify subjecting my children to this."

    This is a particularly important time for Pacers officials to reach out to individual fans. The corporate demand for tickets has fallen dramatically since the Fieldhouse opened for the 1999-2000 season. Average per-game attendance has declined from the capacity of 18,345 during the inaugural season to 16,558 last season.

    The Pacers have made a concerted effort to attract more walk-up ticket sales to fill the corporate void over the last two seasons.

    "The loyal, long-term fans will stay with the team, but the casual fans, which are so critical now, are at severe risk," sports analyst Bonham said.

    The day following the Pacers press conference, sports marketers said Artest made matters worse by giving a rambling interview to Matt Lauer on "The Today Show." Artest not only deflected responsibility for the incident, but also took the opportunity to promote his music label.

    The display showed just how little control the Pacers have over the situation, industry sources said, with one close to the team saying Pacers brass were upset by the interview.

    "Artest's comments during 'The Today Show' interview shows he still doesn't get it," Reno said. "Despite all that has happened, Artest didn't miss an opportunity to use the folks at NBC to promote his rap album."

    Reno added, "Perhaps Artest can take comfort in the fact that he has a kindred spirit in David Stern, who, while condemning the brawl, refuses to acknowledge any culpability on behalf of the NBA."

    Stern, like Walsh, is an attorney.

    With lawsuits already pending from fans who claim they were injured in the brawl, and appeals from the NBA Player's Association up in the air, Grand Slam's Thompson, who also is an attorney, said the team's marketing and public relations arms might be tied by the legal staff.

    "Everyone will craft their statements to avoid legal liability," he said. "If you say it's our fault, you accept liability. I'm sure the Pacers want to be careful not to admit guilt in a civil or criminal way."

    Bonham thinks compromising fan and sponsor communication to protect the team legally is a slippery slope.

    "Communicating to fans and sponsors better be a front-burner issue," he said. "They can't afford any confusion right now about the future of this team. That will certainly multiply any losses."--




    https://www.ibj.com/topstories.asp?A=16959
    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
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

    Didn't we hear rumours of two sponsors either threatening to pull out or reduce thier contracts with the Pacers. Does anyone know anything more about that?

    I know the letter I got from DW, which presumably was the same form letter every other season ticket holder got, was fully into crisis/ apology/ we'll do better mode.
    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

    • #3
      Re: IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

      Sorry, Jay this is not to you, but this articles is not only very badly written, it is also not researched, no fact checks and moronically self indulgant.

      We now know the writers "opinion" and what he bases it upon, half and complete un-truths.

      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

        Well, the article is a couple weeks old. But, regardless, just to set the record straight:

        - The Pacers only had to pay the first 10 games of the suspensions, saving most of the $11.8M listed.

        - Attendance has gone up since the brawl.

        - Attendance is up over last year, when the team had a superior record.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

          Add to that the fact that Ron's interview was supposed to be about his cd and agreed long before the brawl and you get what we are saying
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

            Originally posted by able
            Add to that the fact that Ron's interview was supposed to be about his cd and agreed long before the brawl and you get what we are saying
            If you're referring to this:

            The day following the Pacers press conference, sports marketers said Artest made matters worse by giving a rambling interview to Matt Lauer on "The Today Show." Artest not only deflected responsibility for the incident, but also took the opportunity to promote his music label.

            You are incorrect. The 'Today Show' interview was scheduled only after the fight, and only to talk about the fight. You're thinking of his appearance on a sports network (which was either ESPN or FSN, I think ESPN) where people were criticizing him for talking about the CD, when in fact he had scheduled to appear much earlier to do just that.

            But the interview the article mentions in my quote box, on 'The Today Show', that was Ron looking really bad because he was there to talk about the fight, and he acted cute with his CD.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

              Are you sure Hicks? Everything I heard was that the Today Show appearance was about the CD and booked weeks in advance. That's why it was co-broadcast with the radio station in Indy.
              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

                Pretty sure, though that makes sense about the co-thing with the radio station. Think about it: Is Matt Lauer gonna have an interview with Ron Artest over his little CD in the middle of the Today Show, booked in advance? No way. They're one of THE major news outlet shows, network tv, they wouldn't waste time with an Indiana pro athlete promoting a CD no one cares about. It was ESPN/FSN.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

                  Originally posted by able
                  Sorry, Jay this is not to you, but this articles is not only very badly written, it is also not researched, no fact checks and moronically self indulgant.

                  We now know the writers "opinion" and what he bases it upon, half and complete un-truths.

                  This came from the Indianapolis Business Journal, and should be read while considering the source, intended purpose, and primary audience. This isn't sports-page drivel.

                  I think its a fine article that points to the struggle the business operations has been having, post-brawl, with sponsors, suiteholders, and ticketholders that are either (1) embarassed, or (2) disappointed that Pacers' management appears to have no control over a franchise, or at least one troublesome player. This was a franchise advertising to have "one goal" and championship aspirations.

                  And it expounds on the tight line that Pacers' brass must walk down between assuring the sponsors and major customers that this type of embarrassing event (DW called it an embarassing low-point in his letter to STH's) won't happen again without admitting to guilt in a way that can be used against them later.

                  Ron's bad-boy image may work for a shoe manufacturer, soft drink company, or video-game producer. Not many of those folks in Indy, the people actually paying the Pacers' bills are at insurance companies, banks, Lilly, etc. The Pacers are facing a bigger challenge on the PR front with thier primary customer than the challenge they face to still make the playoffs in the East.

                  Just because you don't like it - and by the time I saw it in print and decided to post it on here it was obviously no longer "timely" - doesn't make it any of those adjectives you used. Now I'll agree he gave too much space to that one consultant, but I'd say that it is, in fact, the most accurate article we've seen regarding the affect of the brawl on the Pacers' business operations.
                  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

                  • #10
                    Re: IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

                    Jay, as you will understand, I nay know the mag

                    I do see "some" of the struggle, but not much more, usually I have a hard time agreeing to the "PR" babble and subsequent power to the sponsors.

                    I can go in a page long diatribe about marketing and why looking at it from the angle they do is not quit spot on but more a "a**kissing" method which comes close to begging, a method that lost it's appeal in a large deal of markets.

                    "Street Cred" VA has always been an urban myth, brand positioning is far more important, the image of the "sponsored" players is a large part of that positioning, nobody can tell me that Ron's image has changed that much over the course of the events. IF he lost the contract then there are a few things that are clear: he wil still get his money whether it comes from the Palace or the manufacturer and the reason for getting Artest was not Artest but the price.

                    In both cases I do not feel sorry for anyone but Ron; used and abused.

                    Hicks, it was written in several newspapers that the Todayshow interview was planned, to promote the CD (Which btw is only produced by Ron and definitely not about Ron, Allure had previous record contracts elsewhere, Ron gave them a second chance in life, let's not forget that part) and because it was straight after the "Re-Match" at Detroit, there would not have been much time to get Ron into any studio the next morning after the brawl and much less easy access. The Pacers would have definitely said no to such a request.
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

                      Originally posted by able
                      Sorry, Jay this is not to you, but this articles is not only very badly written, it is also not researched, no fact checks and moronically self indulgant.

                      We now know the writers "opinion" and what he bases it upon, half and complete un-truths.

                      Able, no offense here friend but have you considered that you say this at almost every turn when there is an article or editorial that does not agree with your point of view on the whole Brawl thing?

                      Obviously you take this very passionatly, which is fine, but you allow zero room for a disenting opinion on this.

                      You just can't, for whatever reason, understand that not everybody is in lock step with the Ron Artest fan wagon on this.

                      I understand your view point & even understand why you have it, I just don't agree with you.

                      Why can't you do the same thing with people who disagree with your point of view on this?


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

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

                        The fact that I do not agree with the content's opinion is an opinion I am entitled to, but has little if nothing to do with the facts mentioned in the article being incorrect.

                        See Hicks answer for more accurate description of that, perhaps I should have stated those shortcomings straight away but I was thinking most of us know them anyway.

                        I can fully understand people's right to an opinion, I always agree to disagree without losing respect for other people, no matter what their opinion, however I do object by nature to opinionated articles which are presented as fact to the masses while they contain misrepresentation of those facts.

                        Respecting you for your contributions despite a discerning opinion to mine does not alter the fact that most if not all of your posts are fed by facts that are irrefutable.
                        I can have a different opinion on how to read those facts, or how to highlight other facts then you mention to ascertain support for my opinion, but you will not hear me say or see me write that you are wrong.

                        Bias is human, we all have our reasons to like or dislike people or players, we all form opinions from the things we read/hear/see and believe in them, changing opinions is always the hardest thing to do, however respect for other people's opinions is not that hard to muster, if you can see how and where they base them upon.

                        The only opinion you and I differ in is on whether Ron should come back and play for the Pacers or not, an opinion that devides larger parts of this community and one I can live with, there are players I'm not to fond of either.
                        I do not condone what Ron did, and stated so from the beginning, however I do believe he was treated wrongly with the suspension he got, by that, "my team" was hurt badly, where as you say that he hurt the team badly, we do both agree that the team was hurt though.

                        I am not complaining of your opinion, nor of Jay's; I only try to discuss the reasons and perhaps to some feeble extend to change your mind by arguing a case for the defense.
                        It does however most surely not mean that I do not respect the prosecution in this case (you and Jay) nor does it mean I would now lowball your great contributions in other non-Artest related articles.

                        I merely pointed out that the article was flawed, not knowing where it came from, which is slightly less relevant but does bare some relevancy, and did this because other articles that are perhaps more correct in factual content are ignored or seen as "pro-Artest" while all they do is correctly picture the facts that I saw with my own eyes, ad nauseum.

                        I don't recall anyone reacting to statement about the "general public opinion" being (now weeks after the fact) that Ron got to hard a deal.

                        Rehashing things that are untrue, or partially misrepresent the facts is revisionist and that is something I see to much of to begin with, and am opposed to by sheer nature.

                        I hope this makes you understand my reaction.

                        Please disagree with me, but let's respect the facts and each other and we can have great discussions, after all, is there anything more fun then to debate facts and their explanation?
                        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

                          Originally posted by able
                          Please disagree with me, but let's respect the facts and each other and we can have great discussions, after all, is there anything more fun then to debate facts and their explanation?
                          Yes, eating breakfast at miliways

                          Fair enough, as long as we both agree the team was hurt I guess the sands of time will decide who did the hurting.

                          On the other hand, David Harrison is great


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

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

                            Hicks, it was written in several newspapers that the Todayshow interview was planned, to promote the CD (Which btw is only produced by Ron and definitely not about Ron, Allure had previous record contracts elsewhere, Ron gave them a second chance in life, let's not forget that part) and because it was straight after the "Re-Match" at Detroit, there would not have been much time to get Ron into any studio the next morning after the brawl and much less easy access. The Pacers would have definitely said no to such a request.
                            I need proof, because IMO there is NO. WAY. A show as "big" as The Today Show plans to have Ron on to talk about that CD. It is way, way too insignificant for that show to care. I think you're thinking of a diff. show. I feel more confident about this than I do Reggie making a clutch 3. If you lived here and saw the Today show, you'd know why I'm extremely skeptical that you have your information right.

                            SOMEBODY on PD besides me must watch this show if even just occasionally, can you back me up here? You know what I'm talking about when I say no way does the freakin' Today show plan to interview Ron over that stupid CD. It's beneath them.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control

                              Originally posted by Hicks
                              I need proof, because IMO there is NO. WAY. A show as "big" as The Today Show plans to have Ron on to talk about that CD.
                              Uh, sorry Hicks, but have you ever seen the Today Show in your life, or any other morning show for that matter. It's all cooking and gift ideas and Dr. Phil-esqe lightweight crap. Sure, they'll have a real news interview or two, but there's a huge difference between the broadcast morning shows and the news channel morning shows (Fox and Friends, CNN This Morning, Don Imus, etc.)

                              Granted, when the Today show set up the thing with Ron and the radio station, they probably didn't plan on Lauer doing the interview until after the brawl. But that doesn't change what the purpose of the booking was.
                              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X