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
-
This space for rent. -
Re: Pot. Do you care?
So you are saying smoking the stuff does not limit a professional athletes lung capacity or their endurance, or their ability to train.Originally posted by UncleWTF View PostComment
-
Re: Pot. Do you care?
Wouldn't that be hilarious. After years it's revealed that Twes is actually Herb Simon who has been tormenting Pacer board regulars with his off topic insanity.Originally posted by Anthem View PostSo which one of the Simons are you?
Great point.
Unless, of course, the player in question is under 21. In which case,
No, I just put my GM cap on for the thread topic.
We're all safe.
Comment
-
Re: Pot. Do you care?
Just take a joke. I think you're a great poster but you're wound too tight sometimes. Just bein real with ya.Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
As Chris Rock would say, let it slide!
Comment
-
Re: Pot. Do you care?
I have no doubt it does. I also have no doubt that drinking does the same, as does a poor diet, bad workout habits and so on.Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
Here's the problem with your stance, if you don't know HOW the player got to the level he is at then what's the difference? If the player is happy to be judged as a lesser player than he could be then that's on him, but the Pacers aren't paying him on what he could be (in the sense of if he didn't smoke), they are paying him on what he actually does.
So a Josh Howard isn't burning teams with his "stupidity", he's only burned himself. For all we know he'd be worse if he eliminated this method of getting his mind right. We just don't know, we only know what his lifestyle and approaches have currently created.
I mean isn't this the same as saying "if only PD poster X didn't eat so much they could do so much more and live so much longer...do we really want to hear the opinions of someone too stupid to look after their own health?"
Heart disease is the top killer right now, more than cancer, so it's pretty valid to see the disregarding of issues that might impact heart health as "dumb". But maybe PD poster X needs the box of donuts to destress and post clear thoughts.
The point is that I don't think you can equate two separate aspects as the same train of thought or equal identifiers of intelligence. Plenty of smart people risk personally destructive divorces with extra marital activities every day. Suddenly Bill Clinton is an illiterate fool because of Lewinski?
Now, if you are saying that a player is considering taking up smoking after the Pacers signed him up to output at a certain level then I'll listen to the idea that he's pushing it. But then what about a player that owns a motorcycle or hangs out with Tinsley. What about Jeff Kent "washing his truck"?
I once worked for a company where key people were expected to avoid all risk activities during key design phases and this would include skiing, mountain biking, etc. So it stops being about pot and starts being about "what are we paying you for and is there anything you will be doing that puts your ability to continue to do that at SERIOUS risk".
I think it's fair that a company hold that standard, but they have to make a case that the ability to MAINTAIN THE CURRENT level they were negotiated at is going to be compromised.
Just ask Greg Oden about that.
Comment
-
Re: Pot. Do you care?
In keeping with my previous post I do think a team could be reasonably expected to want to negotiate these concerns into a contract, as in "if you want to take this stance then we want the right to not be forced to take it with you", as in being alliviated of paying the player when he is arrested for the activity.Originally posted by Kstat View Post
Again, this is going to depend on the team's stance on the issue. If it was civil rights you'd obviously expect a team to support Player X if he's going to a protest and possibly be arrested for a few days. The team is sharing the pain in that case because they are also supporting the cause.
But I certainly would NEVER expect a team/company to be forced to support a cause, especially one involving the changing of a law. And this again goes past legal issues. You might be a big PETA fan but that doesn't mean your company has to put up with you missing 2 weeks when you are arrested in Mexico protesting a chinchilla farm.* They might even think it's a "good cause" but not be willing to go as far as losing employees for a few weeks.
Good point. And it's not one marked by pot, lots of guys mouth off about whatever at seemingly the worst possible time. So if we redirect that way then I guess we could discuss avoiding a player simply because he causes disruptions in whatever manner. I'd say that's a big yes for the Pacers at this point.Originally posted by Brian View Post
* vaguely offensive remark number 8 1/2 in my effort to hit Most Offensive Poster 2009Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 05-07-2008, 12:05 PM.Comment
-
Re: Pot. Do you care?
Aesop -
Sideburns - dead giveaway. Unless he joined Wolfmother or The Strokes when we weren't looking.Diener is a dealer.
I'm thinking Metropolis or 501 is more like it.Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
* and **
* definitely on the Most Offensive List
** if you don't get it, move downtown with the hip kids
(I'm neither a kid nor hip, but the hip kids clue me in, usually right before they TP and egg my house...whippersnappers)Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 05-07-2008, 12:07 PM.Comment
-
Re: Pot. Do you care?
They can eat whatever they want, but yes, they are machines. Their body gets them their paycheck. Why in the world, if you raced a car, would you put crappy gas in it? What you eat affects how you feel, your immune system, your energy level, your eye sight, the ability of your body to repair damage (skin/muscle tissue/connective tissue/etc.).Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
You ask a professional athlete if he can eat like a regular person, and you would get told "no" every single time. The FDA recommends 2000 kcals for people, that's why on nutrition labels everything is set at 2000 kcal levels for percentages of nutrients. I would estimate that pro basketball players need well over 5000 kcals, without doing the math or studies.
I mean hell Dwight Freeney won't eat lemons because of his diet for God's sake. Professional athlete's bodies are fine tuned machines, and you're only kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
As far as the chance of getting caught while smoking in your room, that might be the case with you, but again, you're not getting random drug tests by your employer. I don't know enough about the NBA drug policy, but I know MLB and NFL give drug screens year round, no matter if it's dead in the middle of the offseason. You get busted a month after the season ends, that's a strike on your record. I read another comment from a poster that say's as long as they're not driving around with it. Well unless they grow it, or their dealer delievers, then they're going to drive around with it.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Pot. Do you care?
Then again, Chad Johnson eats McDonalds three times a day and it seems to work out pretty well.Originally posted by Since86 View Post
The only qualification for being a professional athlete is to be good enough at your sport for someone to give you money to do so. Other than that, how good you want yourself to be is up to you -- not the schmuck billionaire who gave you a guarenteed contract or the schmuck fans that overspend for tickets to come watch you play.
If you want to huff glue in your spare time, go nuts.
I won't respect you for that decision and I'll be upset about it if you happen to play for the teams I like, but feel free to live your own life however you want. If idiots let there kids think guys like Michael Irvin and Darryl Strawberry are worth looking up to as role models then those idiots probably shouldn't have had kids.Comment
-
Re: Pot. Do you care?
Why in the wrold if you raced a car would you be out drinking at 3 AM the night before the 500?Why in the world, if you raced a car, would you put crappy gas in it?
Family story in which my grandfather tracked down their team's driver and found him out drinking with AJ. Seemed to work out okay for him, but then maybe he would have won 8 if he'd toned it down.
And good thing the Yanks passed on this issue, can you imagine Mantle playing for another team simply because the Yanks didn't want a guy stupid enough to hurt his career by getting drunk on nights before games?Comment
-
Re: Pot. Do you care?
Using an argument about Mickey Mantle, considering the progress in athletic performance, and nutrition, would be like me using the Wright brothers as an example for talking about current day aerodynamics.
The level of athlete is leaps and bounds better than it was 60 years ago. How about you tell us that FT shooting should be done granny style because Rick Barry did it, or about how advancing the ball by dribbling should be a violation because that was part of the original rules that Dr. Naismith had drawn up.
I'm willing to bet that Chad Johnson also works his *** off in the gym so he can do it. I still have all my notes for my nutrion class, which is intro, and will be taking nutrition for athletes next semester if you want me to forward those on as well.
Athlete's can't eat at the same level as you or I, because their body requires more of it. Just because Chad eats McDonalds three times a day doesn't mean that's all he eats. And as far as Chad Johnson in general, I don't know why someone on his level would be a good example to follow to begin with.
It's getting to the point now where performance enhancing facilities are targeting high school kids. I graduated from a small 1a school (76 kids in my class) and we had our entire basketball team seeing a personal trainer. St. Vincent Hospital in Indy now has TV ads for high school kids to come and train with their performance team.
There's a another tread talking about weightlifting, and the importance of nutrion in it. Go talk to athletes, yes even Chad Johnson, about what it takes to play at a high level and the things they can and cannot do with their bodies.
:EDIT: Hell a couple of years ago I was in a debate on here about Ron Artest and his complaining that he didn't recieve his room service at the time he requested, on game days when they were on the road, and how it negatively affected his performance. :END EDIT:
Either way, it still doesn't negate the fact that it's an illegal activity. It's not on the same level as speeding, in the eyes of the law (unless your a hibitual offender) because you can recieve jail time for the offense.
Speeding is a citation, drugs are misdemeanors or even felonies.Last edited by Since86; 05-07-2008, 02:33 PM.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Pot. Do you care?
I know you're a nutrition guy and believe all you say. You clearly understand all this moreso than anyone here (I reckon). The McDonald's thing was sort of tongue in cheek and included, mainly, cause I'm sort of an a-hole, not cause I think Ocho Cinco wouldn't play better if he ate broccoli and yogurt all day.
Engaging in certain behaviors will of course hinder their abilities. My only point was that it's up to them whether or not they care -- not so much us who watch.Comment
-
Re: Pot. Do you care?
An athlete's body and talent on the court are his product.
Before he's drafted it's a job interview for him where he's trying to make the case for a team to invest their future in him. Millions of dollars and the reputation of the franchise on the line.
We've seen here in Indy the ways these things impact an organization. Making bad choices with players can destroy what takes years to build.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
You're sure as Hell going to scrutinize anything that might diminish a players product.Last edited by Twes; 05-07-2008, 03:41 PM.Comment
-
Re: Pot. Do you care?
No its not, not unless in 61 everyone thought it was just fine to get smashed before games. According to the interviews with Billy, Whitey and Mic they sure didn't think it helped. Ford always joked that he had it easy because he wasn't pitching that day. They'd talk about how amazing it was that Mantle could produce like that IN SPITE OF being hungover.Originally posted by Since86 View Post
Sports medicine being even more exact doesn't remove the fact that by this time they were going to spring training, getting curfews and being expected to NOT GO DRINKING. But they did.
So if we are debating on a team like the Pacers passing on a player because they have a priori decided to reduce their output ability then it's directly the same as the Yanks skipping on Mantle because he could have been even better.
If Howard is going to go 16-6-2 and get paid for that amount, on crack, heroine and pot, and is not going to miss games due to be arrested (or is willing to go without pay for those games, perhaps compensate the Pacers when they have to find a new player too) then it's a moot point.
Right now for all you know Reggie grew his own in the basement and no one ever found out. If we could suddenly know that was true would it erase what he did? Would it change the value per dollar the Pacers got from him?
The Pacers have to have 2 concerns - what level will you perform at and how often will you be available to play.
Personally I'll take Howard, 10 games missed in jail, and 16-6-2 the rest of the time for a pay rate similar to Dunleavy. That's more games played than Quis last year, or Tins or JO this or last year.
There is plenty of risk that non smoking players will see their output falter or their games missed hit 10+ too. I'm not dismissing it as a factor at all, I'm saying you consider the impact, adjust the offered pay accordingly if the players total output will still have value to you, and you deal with it.
A player's own motivation to stay in shape, try hard, not lose his temper and get tossed, actually understand what he's supposed to do, etc are all just as important or more so.Comment
-
Re: Pot. Do you care?
Howard CAN go 18-6-2 with pot in his life. I'll pay him accordingly for that caliber output. I'll add to the contract that time lost to jail will not be paid, could void the contract at my discretion and might involve me seeking damages since it's not like I can just go get another player off the street.and the things they can and cannot do with their bodies.
But then that would apply to manslaughter, tax evasion and forgery too. Unable to play is unable to play. And as we've discussed before most deals do have wording regarding these kinds of issues.Comment
Tweet
Comment