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's comments on Artest, Fair?

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

  • #31
    Re: Arbitrator's comments on Artest, Fair?

    Originally posted by Unclebuck
    I think Ben Wallace has some anger management issues also.
    I can't think of anything he's done other than over-react to Ron's foul.

    I put him in a similar category to JO. What he did was wrong, but out-of-character. I don't expect a repeat performance from either of them.

    Am I forgetting something?
    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


    • #32
      Re: Arbitrator's comments on Artest, Fair?

      Able: I'm in 100% agreement with what you've stated today on the severity of the suspensions. There is no reason or logic to it whatsoever! That is what I continue to struggle with. Also, the hostile crowd and their over-reaction wasn't taken into consideration as mitigating factors.

      At the end of the day, it feels like we all agree suspensions were warranted because it escalated into a nightmare situation for all involved. Ron had to get the most severe penalty because he did the IDIOT thing of going into the stands (on the road in a hostile environment). Jax deserved the 2nd most and on down the line. Ben Wallace's suspension was too light.

      I also think most of us agree that the suspensions were too long and should be representative of the facts and prior penalties issued (was Maxwell's incident at home or on the road?). If all the precedents are within 10-20 games then thats where it should be for Artest plus a boost in penalty because of the end result (even though the fans escalated it further).

      So give Ron 15 and 2x for Being David Stern or for the resulting brawl. (30 games)
      Jax gets 2x Maxwell for going after two fans (20 games)
      JO gets 10- Maxwell precedent...could be lower because said fan already on court and attacked two Pacers (Ron and AJ I think)
      Ben Wallace- 5 games for the attack on Artest, Additional 2 games for failing to leave the court, plus 5 games for throwing **** and inciting the initial crowd reactions - total 10-12 games.

      As we all know, we don't have much of a say in the Matter and Artest gave Stern a "WAY OUT" but being the scapegoat. Artest made Stern look like a hero which makes me sick to my stomach!!

      My Opinion on the outcome. I'd love to see the Court side with the union and its players....Stern has too much power. But, I don't see it.

      Court decides with Stern on jurisdiction, but Stern agrees after the fact with Kaplan on the merits of JO's past.

      Water

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Arbitrator's comments on Artest, Fair?

        When Ben loses it he loses it, I have watched him go after refs many times verbally, but of course we don't care about that.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Arbitrator's comments on Artest, Fair?

          I'd say there's a difference between "hotheadedness" and "anger management issues."
          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


          • #35
            Re: Arbitrator's comments on Artest, Fair?

            Originally posted by Unclebuck
            Does this make any sense. Why not judge Artest's actions. I would have more respect for Kaplan's decision if he just said, Artest was the first player to go into the stands and therefore he needs to be suspended for 73 games. Sorry for the rant, here it is
            Well, in a lot of ways I agree with you but nothing in our legal system works that way.

            Two drunk drivers get in accidents. In one the other driver walks away. In the other, the driver is killed. Are the punishments the same?

            A couple of teenagers are screwing around and set fire to abandoned buildings. In one, the building just burns down. In the other, a homeless man is sleeping in it and dies.

            Two people shoot someone. In the first case, the victim recovers. In the second, the victim dies. I could probably come up with a hundred examples like this.

            The end result always affects the punishment.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Arbitrator's comments on Artest, Fair?

              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
              Well, in a lot of ways I agree with you but nothing in our legal system works that way.

              Two drunk drivers get in accidents. In one the other driver walks away. In the other, the driver is killed. Are the punishments the same?

              A couple of teenagers are screwing around and set fire to abandoned buildings. In one, the building just burns down. In the other, a homeless man is sleeping in it and dies.

              Two people shoot someone. In the first case, the victim recovers. In the second, the victim dies. I could probably come up with a hundred examples like this.

              The end result always affects the punishment.
              Only if there is a proven relation between th outcome and the action, in this case the proof between the riot and Artest actions fails.
              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Arbitrator's comments on Artest, Fair?

                Originally posted by able
                This was in the excerpts I posted above I commented on that also.

                Quote:

                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.

                and added reasoning above in this thread.
                That's the thing that will never make sense to me. Maxwell had a "History" of bad behavior before he punched the fan and only got 10 games. The guy don't even throw anything but words at Mad Max.

                Ron's suspension does not compute anyway you look at it.
                "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Arbitrator's comments on Artest, Fair?

                  From what I recall, the things the guy said about Maxwell's daughter were so offensive and repulsive that Maxwell 'received the benefit of the doubt' here. That is the primary reason I don't like to use that as a comparable situation.

                  Maxwell had a history of odd behavior. But I don't recall him as a habitual repeat offender of the league's on-court decorum standards. But I could be wrong here, Maxwell played on teams that I found un-interesting so I didn't watch him that closely...
                  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


                  • #39
                    Re: Arbitrator's comments on Artest, Fair?

                    From the NY Times today, this makes very clear what I was saying earlier on about the reason for the TRO:

                    Judge Allows Pacer to Play on Saturday
                    By LIZ ROBBINS

                    Published: December 24, 2004



                    Duane Burleson/Associated Press

                    The Pacers' Jermaine O'Neal after the Nov. 19 brawl between the teams and fans. His 25-game suspension was cut to 15 games by an arbitrator.


                    A federal judge yesterday cleared Jermaine O'Neal to return from his suspension and play in the Indiana Pacers' game on Christmas in Indianapolis against the Detroit Pistons - and possibly for good.

                    As a stormy wind howled through an open window, Judge George B. Daniels of United States District Court in Manhattan granted the N.B.A. players' association's request for a temporary restraining order to halt the league's 25-game suspension of O'Neal for his role in the Nov. 19 brawl during a game against the Pistons at the Palace of Auburn Hills.

                    The decision temporarily upheld Wednesday's ruling by an arbitrator, Roger Kaplan, who reduced O'Neal's penalty by 10 games. A separate hearing before Judge Daniels on Dec. 30 will determine whether Kaplan had jurisdiction to rule on the case. If Judge Daniels finds Kaplan had no jurisdiction, O'Neal would serve the remaining 10 games.

                    After listening to testimony, Judge Daniels decided the players' union showed it had a likelihood of success that Kaplan had the jurisdiction to appeal Commissioner David Stern's suspension of O'Neal.

                    "It's the first good news we've had on our team," Pacers President Donnie Walsh said yesterday in a telephone interview. "Even if it's for two weeks, and I hope it will be more permanent than that. It's a great jolt at a time when we need it."

                    The N.B.A. had no choice to consent to Judge Daniels's ruling.

                    "While we disagree with the court's decision today and expect that ultimately Judge Daniels will find that the arbitrator had no authority in this matter, we will, of course, abide by the ruling of the court," Russ Granik, the N.B.A. deputy commissioner, said.

                    The Pacers (12-12) have lost 10 of their last 15 games. O'Neal averaged a team-high 22.6 points and 9.6 rebounds.

                    "We're not the same team without Jermaine as we are with Jermaine," Walsh said.

                    The union's outside counsel, Dewey Ballantine, convinced Judge Daniels that there would be "irreparable harm" sustained - like the Pacers' missing the playoffs or earning a lower seed - had O'Neal continued to sit out until the question of jurisdiction was decided.

                    The N.B.A. argued that O'Neal should sit out, and if a judge ruled in favor of him at a later date, he would be granted back pay. But Judge Daniels said money would not compensate for other intangibles of missing 10 games.

                    "That may have consequences for the player, the team, the player's future and the league's future," he said. "The balance of hardships tipped clearly in favor of the player."


                    In a statement made after visiting children in a hospital with teammates yesterday, O'Neal said: "I'm extremely happy. It's been a tough process. Now I can play the game I love so much. I'm ready, but I have to find a way to bottle up the energy and use it in a good way. I have to make sure we win games and when Stephen Jackson gets back, we can win a championship."

                    The players' union had contested the suspensions of O'Neal, Ron Artest (for the season), Jackson (30 games) and Anthony Johnson (5 games) in a hearing on Dec. 9, which the league did not attend because it protested the arbitrator's jurisdiction to hear the case. Kaplan upheld the suspensions of Artest, Jackson and Johnson.

                    The collective bargaining agreement allows the commissioner sole authority to rule and hear appeals for "on-court" incidents. The union and Kaplan interpreted this to mean actions that occur only during the flow of the game.

                    The league, however, contends that the Pacers fought with fans - both in the stands and on the court - before the game was called by the officials, meaning it was part of the action.

                    The melee erupted moments after Pistons center Ben Wallace pushed Artest in response to what he considered an unnecessarily hard foul in the waning moments of a game that the Pacers had dominated. Artest jumped into the stands after a fan threw a drink on him.

                    Complicating the issue was the fact that O'Neal punched a fan on the court. He also shoved a security officer on the sideline.

                    But the union contended that both O'Neal incidents were part of the larger melee and subject to an appeal by an arbitrator.

                    "This merits further argument," Judge Daniels said.

                    The league's lawyers, led by Jeffrey Mishkin, a partner in Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, contended that if O'Neal were to return now, it could harm the image of the league because the arbitrator's ruling undermines Stern's authority.

                    "This affects the N.B.A. business in a huge way," Mishkin said. "We have to show we have our house in order."

                    Daniels disagreed.

                    "I do not feel in any way I have undermined the authority of the commissioner to discipline players for their conduct," he said.

                    Kessler said Daniels did not outright declare the union had won, but implied that "there is a pretty good chance of winning on the jurisdiction issue."

                    Only lawyers - no players - attended the hearing, which began at 10 a.m. and ended at 3:15 p.m.

                    O'Neal practiced with the Pacers yesterday morning and joined Artest and other Pacers in visiting children at three Indianapolis area hospitals.

                    "He hasn't played in a month, but he's practiced for the last two weeks," Walsh said. "Jermaine has kept his body in very good shape. I expect him to play pretty well."
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X