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

Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Originally posted by able
    There is no "forfeit" involved if the judge orders this solution, that would never hold up anywhere in any age in any place.
    Really???

    "Swift justice" has always been a hallmark of the NBA. I can't see anybody happy with the outcome that JO has to sit out ten more games in April/ May because the judge finally ruled/ appeals ran out...

    My gut feeling is that if he's back, he's back for good. But if its under the cloak of an injunction allowing him to play while the appeals drag on, then its at the risk of forfeiting games that he played in when "Stern was right all along and JO was not eligible."

    But we're back to where I think the judge will give a swift judgement tomorrow, so this won't be an issue.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

      I agree on the expectation of swift, but....

      Under no circumstances is the NBA allowed to play judge and juror over a court ruling.

      IF the judge rules that JO can play while the case is pending, which is he does not decide immediately I am almos certain he will, the NBA has no rights to do anything whatsoever, if the choose to do so I have a feeling that the judge will interrupt his holiday and *****slap Stern so bad he will want another job immediately.

      There already was a NFL example given above there are many more, the league may not like it, but will do nothing whatsoever, not while and not in retrospect, those are the rules they have to abide by when they go to court.
      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: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

        I can not even be bothered to copy and paste this, this article are excerpts from the ruling, the thinking of Kaplan is so scary that I am dumbfounded.

        http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...646EST0419.DTL
        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: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

          Here is the text of the article that frustrated Able.



          Excepts from arbitrator's ruling on brawl suspensions

          The Associated Press

          Wednesday, December 22, 2004


          (12-22) 13:46 PST (AP) --

          Excerpts from arbitrator Roger Kaplan's ruling on an appeal of the suspensions issued by NBA commissioner David Stern to Indiana Pacers players Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal, Stephen Jackson and Anthony Johnson for their roles in a brawl with fans at a Nov. 19 Pacers-Pistons game. A copy of the ruling was obtained by The Associated Press.

          On Ron Artest, suspended for the rest of the season:

          "By entering the stands, Artest precipitated one of the ugliest brawls in NBA history. It is generally understood and indisputable that the riot that ensued was one of the worst, if not the worst, in the history of sports."
          "Artest's complete NBA record must be considered. When his past record is closely examined, it shows that Artest has been suspended for 15 games during his career. Aside from flagrant fouls, his other two suspensions dealt with similar problems, anger management. If this was Artest's first offense, his argument for mitigation of the severity of his penalty might be more compelling. However I cannot discount his previous suspensions, which in any light, are serious. Commissioner Stern had just cause to suspend Artest for the remainder of the NBA season."
          "The union argued that the Vernon Maxwell suspension in 1995 should act as precedent for the Artest penalty issued here. It is true that Maxwell was suspended for 10 games when he entered the stands and hit a spectator. However, the similarities between the two incidents end there. ... What happened in Maxwell's incident is not nearly as severe and does not come close to the unprecedented brawl between players and fans that occurred in Detroit."

          On Jermaine O'Neal, suspended for 25 games (reduced to 15 by the arbitrator):

          "The videotape shows that when O'Neal was attempting to enter the stands and rescue his teammates, an unidentified person grabbed him around the neck from behind. ... I cannot fault O'Neal for attempting to free himself from an unidentified person whose hands were around his neck. He described the chaotic situation at that point in time as 'crazy' and a 'complete riot.' When asked whether he attempts to avoid trouble, O'Neal responded that he is a leader and a captain of his team. He stated it was his concern that his teammates were safe and protected. Unfortunately, when O'Neal attempted to assist his teammate Johnson on the floor, he punched a spectator. When asked why he hit the spectator, O'Neal answered as follows: 'Because I felt he was threatening Anthony Johnson's livelihood ... And that's a question you have to ask yourself, that when you start to see fans come on to the court, let alone in the stands hitting players, when they come on the court, then it becomes a scary situation."'
          "O'Neal's previous conduct in the NBA is vastly different from Artest's. His career in the NBA has been a positive one. He is the recipient of a couple of awards attesting to his character, community involvement and citizenship. His one punch of a spectator, while excessive, was clearly out of character. ... On balance, Commissioner Stern's penalty of 25 games is excessive. I reduce O'Neal's penalty to 15 games."

          On Stephen Jackson, suspended for 30 games:

          "Although Jackson testified that he had sought to bring Artest back to the court, the videotape shows conclusively that he did not try to do so initially. ... He entered the stands swinging his fists at several fans. Rather than attempt to bring Artest's altercation to a conclusion, Jackson's conduct exacerbated the situation. It cannot be said that Jackson acted as any kind of a peacemaker. The throwing of punches by an NBA player, whether those punches connect, reflects adversely on the NBA, the Pacers and Jackson himself. There was no justification for Jackson entering the stands unprovoked and pummeling spectators and fans. That conduct cannot be condoned. Commissioner Stern had just cause to suspend Jackson for 30 games."

          On the response of security guards during the brawl:

          "The union argued that the NBA's lack of security at the Pacers-Pistons game should be considered, and the alleged failure of the referees to bring the incident under control. ... In my view, even if these assertions could be established, and there is insufficient evidence to do so, I cannot conclude that this somehow excused the behavior of the grievants."
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

            Originally posted by able
            I can not even be bothered to copy and paste this, this article are excerpts from the ruling, the thinking of Kaplan is so scary that I am dumbfounded.

            http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...646EST0419.DTL
            You're gonna have to expand, I thought it was quite rational...

            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

              Interesting that Kaplan disagrees that Jax initially entered the stands as a peacemaker... I wish I had access to his video.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                You're gonna have to expand, I thought it was quite rational...

                it was.

                Any ruling that didn't end with "artest and jackson can return on christmas" was going to be blasted in this forum. You know that.

                I thought it was a very lucid argument for upholding their suspensions.

                I also strongly agree with his ruling on JO.

                My only question is this: do you STILL think Stern is out to get you? or is the arbitrator out to get the Pacers as well?

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                  Originally posted by Anthem
                  Interesting that Kaplan disagrees that Jax initially entered the stands as a peacemaker... I wish I had access to his video.
                  I'd like to see that again as well. I didn't think SJax did anything physical until fans swarmed him and a drink thrown into his face.

                  I won't say whether SJax did or did not enter the stands as a peacemaker because my memory is that the Piston fans didn't give him a chance to make his intentions clear. With that frame of reference I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Apparently my memory is clouded or Kaplan saw something I did not.

                  -Bball
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                    Having a drink thrown in your face does not give you the right to assault someone. I think that's the main theme here.

                    Jackson could have made his intentions known by DRAGGING ARETST AWAY from the fans, rather than jumping fist-first into the fray.A few glasses of beer wasn't going to hurt either of them.

                    I still think it appeared that Jackson WANTED to fight, he looked like he was almost getting enjoyment out of it. Rather than Oneal, who is an otherwise-good character, and Artest, who never thinks before he acts, Jackson seemed to be in the most clear situation of the three. He was in the best position by FAR to think clearly, and he acted the most reckless.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                      Originally posted by Kstat
                      it was.

                      Any ruling that didn't end with "artest and jackson can return on christmas" was going to be blasted in this forum. You know that.

                      I thought it was a very lucid argument for upholding their suspensions.

                      I also strongly agree with his ruling on JO.

                      My only question is this: do you STILL think Stern is out to get you? or is the arbitrator out to get the Pacers as well?
                      I know. I'd like to think that my fellow Pacers fans can take off thier blue-and-gold glasses, thier Stuck Fern t-shirts, etc., use thier heads, and think.

                      Meanwhile, I'm glad you're here, proving that *some* of "them" can, in fact, be more rational than certain of my own people.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                        Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                        I know. I'd like to think that my fellow Pacers fans can take off thier blue-and-gold glasses, thier Stuck Fern t-shirts, etc., use thier heads, and think.

                        Meanwhile, I'm glad you're here, proving that *some* of "them" can, in fact, be more rational than certain of my own people.
                        Yeah, thats what I don't get

                        The players went to a THIRD-PARTY, and he STILL held up these "ridiculous penalties." So your ONLY real beef with stern is the 10 extra games he gave JO. Everything else was ruled as perfectly fair.

                        You KNOW there will be "Fu*k Kaplar" shirts in the stands as well.......

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                          Well you asked for it, but it does not make me a happy bunny, though I still want to read the entire thing when I find it.
                          My remarks/opinion in between the quotes:


                          On Ron Artest, suspended for the rest of the season:

                          "By entering the stands, Artest precipitated one of the ugliest brawls in NBA history. It is generally understood and indisputable that the riot that ensued was one of the worst, if not the worst, in the history of sports."
                          This alone is the essence of thinking for the remainder of the ruling, I am dumbfounded by this "logic" and in all honesty, there is NO logic in it, just a spoon-fed remark.

                          It is very easy to establish that this "happening" is nowhere near the worst "riot" in the history of sports, it is an affront that an arbitrator would even consider the wording.

                          It also ignores everything that happened before Ron went into the stands, a lack of understanding OR a manipulative reasoning, whatever way you explain that it lacks the factual foundation from what I witnessed. As I stated earlier when discussing this with Rim, Ron's going in the stands, however bad and wrong, is NOT what precipitated the riot, the riot was already going.

                          This "simple" opening kills the "expected" balanced ruling.

                          "Artest's complete NBA record must be considered. When his past record is closely examined, it shows that Artest has been suspended for 15 games during his career. Aside from flagrant fouls, his other two suspensions dealt with similar problems, anger management.
                          It is sad to see that the flagrants are counted against him, let's face the facts, he already was suspended for those, he paid his dues for that, the law should not know repeat punishment, it is also founded on thin air and nothing else.
                          Then to top it of, he cites 15 suspensions, of which 2 were not flagrant foul related, excluding the thought that some of those flagrants were not so deserved and that in one instance that I know of from the top of my head the league rescinded a flagrant, surely that makes the argument that they should count moot, not to mention that there is no defense against such things.

                          So two cases remain, one I can think of however, which is the "camera" case in New York, where I think it is very important that though this is anger-management related, there is NO history of Ron attacking people.
                          It is however overlooked and the unsuspecting reader might even think that Ron has a habit of beating people up, which is blatantly untrue.

                          If this was Artest's first offense, his argument for mitigation of the severity of his penalty might be more compelling. However I cannot discount his previous suspensions, which in any light, are serious. Commissioner Stern had just cause to suspend Artest for the remainder of the NBA season."
                          Whether an argument is compelling or not is a sidebar issue, facts is what should rule a judgement, compelling circumstances come only in to play when there are either mitigating circumstances or alleviating circumstances.
                          The previous suspensions are not his case, they were dealt with, they are not even close to what happened here, and should therefore not count as much and bare as much gravity as they seemingly do at this moment.

                          "The union argued that the Vernon Maxwell suspension in 1995 should act as precedent for the Artest penalty issued here. It is true that Maxwell was suspended for 10 games when he entered the stands and hit a spectator. However, the similarities between the two incidents end there. ... What happened in Maxwell's incident is not nearly as severe and does not come close to the unprecedented brawl between players and fans that occurred in Detroit."
                          Indeed the similarities end with the punch Vernon Maxwell threw.
                          Ron never punched anyone before two idiots came on the court and attacked him, this almost makes me want to shout, get your facts straight!
                          What he in concreto says here is that Since the Maxwell punchup did not end up in a brawl/riot there is no simularity, that statement in itself is nonsense, what the Maxwell case shows is that public reactions are different and that the mob in Auburn Hills reacted different then most other fans would have done. That however is not something that can be the foundation under a 730% increase in punishment's severity.
                          It also fails to mention at any moment that Ron never hit the spectator in the stands, not once, something that WOULD make the comparison between Maxwell and Artest fail.


                          On Jermaine O'Neal, suspended for 25 games (reduced to 15 by the arbitrator):

                          "The videotape shows that when O'Neal was attempting to enter the stands and rescue his teammates, an unidentified person grabbed him around the neck from behind. ... I cannot fault O'Neal for attempting to free himself from an unidentified person whose hands were around his neck. He described the chaotic situation at that point in time as 'crazy' and a 'complete riot.' When asked whether he attempts to avoid trouble, O'Neal responded that he is a leader and a captain of his team. He stated it was his concern that his teammates were safe and protected.
                          Now, this is a reasoning I can support, because it also shows facts. Something I stated in a discussion on the topic early on and very true and important to the measurement of the punishment. I also believe that JO will not face any problems over getting that singular count of Assault kicked out of court.

                          Unfortunately, when O'Neal attempted to assist his teammate Johnson on the floor, he punched a spectator. When asked why he hit the spectator, O'Neal answered as follows: 'Because I felt he was threatening Anthony Johnson's livelihood ... And that's a question you have to ask yourself, that when you start to see fans come on to the court, let alone in the stands hitting players, when they come on the court, then it becomes a scary situation."'
                          Again a reasoning I understand and that is factual and yes, those are a glimps of what people on the floor felt. (players and staff of the Pacers)


                          "O'Neal's previous conduct in the NBA is vastly different from Artest's. His career in the NBA has been a positive one. He is the recipient of a couple of awards attesting to his character, community involvement and citizenship. His one punch of a spectator, while excessive, was clearly out of character. ... On balance, Commissioner Stern's penalty of 25 games is excessive. I reduce O'Neal's penalty to 15 games."
                          Thought the reasoning above is sound, the last quote is simply ridiculous, in one sentence he praises JO for the community work and basically by omitting this in the other cases and especially Ron's he's saying the others (again especially Ron') do less worthy community work, IF this is a reasoning that should result in some form of leniency then why didn't he consider that when ruling on Ron?

                          On Stephen Jackson, suspended for 30 games:

                          "Although Jackson testified that he had sought to bring Artest back to the court, the videotape shows conclusively that he did not try to do so initially. ... He entered the stands swinging his fists at several fans. Rather than attempt to bring Artest's altercation to a conclusion, Jackson's conduct exacerbated the situation.
                          Now it A says Jax lied, and B ignores completely the beverage that was throwin in his face and the aggresice stance the fans in front of him made, an immission in my opinion.
                          I have a harder time with this since I do feel that Jax was not the player that should have been there, he's to much a powderkeg himself, which showed.

                          It cannot be said that Jackson acted as any kind of a peacemaker. The throwing of punches by an NBA player, whether those punches connect, reflects adversely on the NBA, the Pacers and Jackson himself. There was no justification for Jackson entering the stands unprovoked and pummeling spectators and fans. That conduct cannot be condoned. Commissioner Stern had just cause to suspend Jackson for 30 games."
                          Again the reasoning behind this (the image of the NBA) are not that important as the "justification" I wholeheartedly disagree with "unprovoked and pummeling" since the video shows me different.
                          Yet, while Ron did not swing, he gets 73 games and Jax, here shown as someone who went in maliciously and with fists flying only gets 30, surely even mr. Kaplan can see that his reasoning here is somewhat short.

                          On the response of security guards during the brawl:

                          "The union argued that the NBA's lack of security at the Pacers-Pistons game should be considered, and the alleged failure of the referees to bring the incident under control. ... In my view, even if these assertions could be established, and there is insufficient evidence to do so, I cannot conclude that this somehow excused the behavior of the grievants."
                          This tops it all off, this is so ignorant of what actually happened, took place and allowed it to get out of control that one would almost consider thinking it was a Pistons employee speaking here.
                          So there is enough evidence to condemn Ron and the others, but not to see that the security is lacking?
                          So feeling threatened while doing your work is not a mitigating circumstance?
                          Sorry but this last quote leaves at least 100 questions and that is to much for now. All I can say that it is preposterous.


                          So there you have it, long, but reasoned, so please reason likewise in your answers.
                          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: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                            Originally posted by Doug
                            If Ben's as tough as you say - whoop anybody in the NBA, eat nails for breakfast, make Dale Davis cry, tough - shouldn't he have barely felt a thing?
                            Face it, Ben overreacted.
                            Haha...hell, you're gettin somewhere if you can even make Dale Davis smile!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                              Originally posted by Kstat
                              Having a drink thrown in your face does not give you the right to assault someone. I think that's the main theme here.
                              Actually, having a drink thrown in your face is assault... but that is beside the point.

                              Jackson could have made his intentions known by DRAGGING ARETST AWAY from the fans, rather than jumping fist-first into the fray.A few glasses of beer wasn't going to hurt either of them.
                              I'm just not sure SJax jumped 'fists first into the fray'. I'm not arguing that he was in the right and shouldn't be punished. I'm simply allowing a bit for mitigating circumstances. If he was throwing fists before the fans swarmed him and threw the drink in his face then my memory of the event is wrong.

                              I'm granting that the league had every right to suspend Artest for the season because his history is such that he put himself in that position. OTOH, if my memory is correct of the SJax incident then I could've seen reducing his sentence to something slightly less than it is currently. That would be based on the mitigating circumstances when taken in their totality. That does not mean I expected SJax to get 'time served'. Maybe a 5-10 game reduction.


                              I still think it appeared that Jackson WANTED to fight, he looked like he was almost getting enjoyment out of it.
                              I'm not going to try and read his mind and didn't see anything to make me think he was enjoying himself.

                              Perhaps if certain Piston fans had left him alone he would've grabbed Artest and this all been over? Woulda...coulda... shoulda...

                              My point is, I don't know his intentions and can't read his mind and as such I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt.

                              Kaplan had plenty of time to review things and apparently he saw it differently. The Pacers were in the wrong, tho they were reacting to Piston fans who also were in the wrong. One side happened to get punished more than the other.

                              I'm satisified that JO's penalty was reduced and hope the reduction ends up upheld.

                              Rather than Oneal, who is an otherwise-good character, and Artest, who never thinks before he acts, Jackson seemed to be in the most clear situation of the three. He was in the best position by FAR to think clearly, and he acted the most reckless.
                              I'm hoping the Pacers sever ties with Artest and we just move on. Regardless if it is thru a voided contract, allowing him to retire with our blessings, or a trade. The timebomb went off and Artest will never, ever, ever be able to receive the benefit of the doubt in any circumstances for years (if ever). And his association with the Pacers will surely pull that cloud over them as well.

                              -Bball

                              -Bball
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                                Jeez... able just dropped the hammer on this thread.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X