Tweet
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
Hey, can I make posters?
Originally posted by Harmonica
Wanna be my campaign manager? 
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731 -
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
I think a lot of these sparks could be tempered if it was common knowledge regarding Harmonica's connection to the Pacers. Altho he won't say it I think this recent fury and the unwarranted slings his way show it is time the story is told. ...So I will let the cat out of the bag because it is for his (and everyone's) own good in the long run.
Harmonica is a remote viewer. Any listener of the Art Bell show will know what I am talking about. He's honed his craft to the point he could be working in the government's remote viewer program (a black op) but he's not interested because he fears the power could be put to destructive uses. A remote viewer (a good one) is able to view happenings not only as they occur but also see them in the past and even the future (tho, as it's been explained to me, future viewing is less predictable because events can change in the fabric of time enough so that the future a remote viewer sees may not be the future that occurs. ...So don't be asking him who the Pacers draft next summer or when the team will win a championship). Obviously, the farther one tries to view into the future the more the odds increase that there will be errors.
But that doesn't affect his ability to be a fly on the wall for current Pacer happenings behind closed doors or even looking into the past and seeing what truly happened behind closed doors.
http://www.remoteviewers.com/index.htm
So I think it should be clear now why Harmonica is a valued source of info on this forum and why I and some others trust his observations and comments without question. I know my releasing this info might anger him but I think it is the only way to clear the air and understand how he (and others) can be so certain of his info.
-Bball
Please note the above was total BS posted for amusement purposes only and not meant as disrepect to Harmonica or any Remote Viewers anywhere in the country.
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 WoodenComment
-
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
Huh. And here I thought he justed worked in some capacity for one of our intelligence services with Earl......Originally posted by Bball
PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731Comment
-
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
Ouch. I want my CDs back.Originally posted by MagicRatHuh. And here I thought he justed worked in some capacity for one of our intelligence services with Earl......Comment
-
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
A few more off topic posts and we will need that "Highjacker Smilie" Not sure how you will find one of those though without offending someone.
Comment
-
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
This topic was dead months ago. Plus it's summer. Weeeeeeeeeeee!Originally posted by SycamoreKenA few more off topic posts and we will need that "Highjacker Smilie" Not sure how you will find one of those though without offending someone.Comment
-
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
Man this is a long thread, I still love Ron.
"Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"Comment
-
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
Uh, I sold those on Ebay and made a fortune......Originally posted by Harmonica
PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731Comment
-
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
First foretaz, then Will Galen and Bball, and now you. It appears it might time for Harmonica to ride off into the sunset.Originally posted by MagicRatUh, I sold those on Ebay and made a fortune......Comment
-
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
Who?Originally posted by HoopMan this is a long thread, I still love Ron.
-BballNuntius 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 WoodenComment
-
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
You mean the first 9 pages weren't about Peck's answer for Fortaz concerning who he was voting for for Poster You Most Love to Hate?Originally posted by SycamoreKenA few more off topic posts and we will need that "Highjacker Smilie" Not sure how you will find one of those though without offending someone.
That's what I get for jumping into the end of a 9 page thread........Sorry......
PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731Comment
-
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
Damn! Can one actually hi-jack a thread that was already jacked? I feelOriginally posted by MagicRatYou mean the first 9 pages weren't about Peck's answer for Fortaz concerning who he was voting for for Poster You Most Love to Hate?
That's what I get for jumping into the end of a 9 page thread........Sorry......
Comment
-
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
That sounds pretty zen, actually.Originally posted by SycamoreKenDamn! Can one actually hi-jack a thread that was already jacked? I feelComment
-
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
Originally posted by foretazok...ive decided theres only one way i can do this...and thats go by a section at a time...i realize it might not flow the best....but theres a lot here...and i think each is a bit in of itself, worth talking about....in the end ill try to pull it all together...but i think it might be obvious by that time what im getting at...
the above is what i would call the premise for what u do...or have done in some cases....
and i think u understand, this is my bigggest potential hangup...maybe...discussion shall make it more clear if indeed it is or not....
after the events of the last few days ive decided to start 3 separate threads when i can find the time....and there structure, i promise will be a bit different...they will be more of a literary piece u read versus just throwing my thoughts down in the same way i speak...
the first will deal with the FAN and what all that entails...and the many ways FANS conduct themselves as well as the many different ways they support their team....and we will delve into the touchy subjects -and they are very subjective-as to what is appropriate, do i dare say, and what might not be...
the second and third will probably be one about ron and one about jo....they are the two best players on this team and because of that they are probably the most controversial...
the three threads will all tie together....and many of the thoughts may come up as im discussing this current thread..
anyway...sorry to wander....ur premise is pretty understandable....i would tell u im not in the boat that feels ron walks on water...im not sure who might feel this way, when u say that or something similar...i would have a problem with anyone that feels he can do no wrong simply because hes a basketball player...
however...my huge issue is this premise that i see...and i cant quite tell if its hypocritical or not....and thats why im discussing it....dale davis is my favorite pacer player....has been almost since he got here....after watching about his first 10 games he definitely was....
BUT....because hes our favorite player...doesnt mean we just pass off what he does and basically make excuses for it....how is that any different than what so blatantly rubs u the wrong way where 'artest apologizers' are concerned....
from day one...dale has always been one whos not afraid to fight...and while u can argue all u want that its needed-enforcer-that in no way makes it any less worse than what it really is...seriously-and i dont want to wander off topic-but ive often wondered what dale wouldve done if the cup hit him in the chest....i love him...but i cant help but think he wouldve done something similar-dont kill me...(of course, i also believe wallace wouldnt have shoved dale in the throat, but even if he did dale wouldve kicked his *** and never wouldve never got near the scorers table in a half frenzied state-which is why i so often times find myself wishing artest wouldve just coldcocked wallace like he wanted to-but because he is so trying to 'change' and use restraint, and be a better teammate he backed off, but anyway)
but this goes to mindset again...giving someone the benefit of the doubt...not looking for things to hate a person for....if dale had done it...the reaction wouldve been a bit different...and thats not really my point as much as how the initial mindset almost predetermines how we view everything that happens....
but i guess as i review that thread over and over regarding bonzi...the real reason i somewhat questioned it then and still do now is this....the posts leading up to ur comments didnt seem to be the type of posts that would induce such a dramatic emotional post (am i overreacting)
http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=12430
reread the thread from the beginning...to the point where u responded in the 17 post....
i just remember thinking when reading....wow....where did that come from...and thinking it just seemed out of character...
if the premise is to not stand by when u see something being said that is blatantly wrong...ok...i agree with that...but thats not really what u did in that post....
it seems to me u used the fact that people were saying they didnt want bonzi here(and i only saw one post prior to urs that was somewhat graphic about bonzi) as a form to really vent a little about ron...i sense a lot of emotion in the way that post is worded....now maybe it had to do with what was going on with u at that very moment...and i certainly dont want to pick a post a part...we could do that with anyones...especially mine...but it appears to me that the 'i have no real interest in bonzi' was on point and the rest was a somewhat unsolicited semi-attack on ron character...forgive me for saying so...
so u see my point on the premise issue??? or no....
i will say this...with players we like, as well as other fellow humans, we are much quicker to relunctantly accept their faults....simply because we like them...but if we get the mindset we dont like someone...well....our behavior can be a bit irrational and out of character at times....as evidenced by a post i posted just a bit earlier in this thread....for which im already somewhat regretting....
Dear God I don't even know how to begin this or for that matter where to begin. I thought about asking you to just summerize your thoughts in one post but then I thought that would be rude on my part. So I will try (& probably fail) to reply to each of your posts one by one.
On a side note, man this thread went everywhere. At one point in time I thought I would just need to run in here with some soothing words or even a song just to end the tension.
Ok, let's deal with this post first.
Don't take this the wrong way but when it came to the Bonzi Wells thread I was dealing more with forum history than I was the post of the moment. Even though I was post # 17 in that thread there were 4 posters previous to me that have (in the past not that post) made comments about Bonzi Wells character while at the same time stating that character issues are off of the table with Ron.
Ok, that is a little bit of hyperbole, nobody ever actually said that character issues were off the table with Ron but they will do everything in thier power to jump on the granade whenever it is tossed Ron's way & yet they dismiss Bonzi Wells because he has issues.
I stated I have no interest in Bonzi. If he is the cancer behind the scenes that we hear about then I don't want him here either. But that in no way means that I should want Ron here just to make up the differance, does it?
Ok, that was rambling. Let me try & clarify. What you saw with the Bonzi Wells post was more of issue # 1 with me. I was trying to counter the Ron Artest army (& they know who they are don't you Suaveness ) by just injecting my thoughts into the debate. Maybe I shouldn't do that & it's something I'll think about & see how I feel about it.
BTW, Suaveness knows that was meant in fun or at least I hope he does.
Ok, your first issue which I will deal with second.
Dale Davis.... Well were to begin with this?
*******Please people for the love of God let's not take what I'm about to say as an excuse to argue about the brawl again************
I'll just go ahead & say this now, it never would have gone that far with Dale for two reasons.
1. Dale would have gone at Ben Wallace right at mid-court.
2. Dale Davis (& this is IMPORTANT) would never have given Ben Wallace a gentle shove as he was going up for a basket like Ron did.
People act like Ben was unprovoked by Ron, that's just not true. Ben way way over reacted no doubt, but what did Ron think Ben would do? Actually that was the problem IMO, Ron didn't think. He just reacted. He was fouled on the other end with no call by Big Ben's Big @ss & he vohemently complained at the half to Jim Grey that the refs. were letting him get killed under the boards so when this went down he reacted. We all know what happened from there.
So, sorry I just can't agree with your Dale Davis analogy on this. Over his Pacer career I can only think of two occasions that Dale ever did anything to a player that wasn't looking at him & in both cases it was a retaliation for Mark Jackson getting hit & in neither case was Dale even called for a foul let alone a flagrant.
1. He laid out Scottie Pippen with a hard pick (but I've always had a feeling that this was under the instruction of Bird but I have no proof) during the playoffs.
2. He nailed Kurt Thomas in the back of the head on a rebound with a forarm & Kurts bell was rung & had to leave the game.
Now if you are going to ask me if I approve of this? In the case of issue # 1 I do because it was in the sense of making a basketball play & even though it was hard it was legal (the refs. didn't even blow a whistle)
As to issue # 2? No, that was wrong & Dale shouldn't have done that.
Like I said I feel in my heart at least, that if Dale did anything I thought was wrong on the floor I would call him out for it. Now don't get me wrong though, I love it when Dale stands up for himself so if you think I'm going to call that wrong it just ain't happening. I've never seen Dale start a fight but I've seen him finish a lot of them.
Ok, I hope I covered this post well enough for you. I will now move on to the next one.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
Re: An answer for Fortaz......
Peck, why is it you get so worked up because the Pacers MIGHT have had a chance to draft Jordan, when the Pacers DID have a chance to select Larry Bird, you you never mention it?
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, 2004Comment
Comment