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

Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

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

  • #31
    Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

    You can believe Ron Artest should not be a Pacer, and still believe the severity of the suspensions was unjust to the Pacers and to Ron Artest. The two are separate issues.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

      Conversly you can support the Pacers & still feel that the suspensions were just. It's just a matter of opinion.


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

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

        I try not to disagree with Peck because his avatar could kick my avatar's ***.

        But you see, I think Soup Nazi could take John Candy.
        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

          Originally posted by Peck
          A few things.

          I think you keep confusing pacers fans with general public. All the people you heard that night were ex-jocks & sports reporters.
          This is what Stern was facing. You keep talking about seeing ESPN & local fans. This is not what Stern was facing, nor truthfully was it what he cared about. Some people don't like this but he was looking after the bottom line.
          I haven't really considered what the average Joe thinks about the incident. I'm worried about what NBA fans think, not the massage therapist who watches Opera all day. Stern's decisons all come down to the mighty dollar, so why consider non-NBA fans? They don't support it with their coin, so who cares? One could argue that the overall image downgrade may prevent us from attracting said fans, but I think that is kind of a minor point in the overall scheme of things. I mean I didn't watch baseball after the fan attacked a coach, but I never watched it before the attack either. Since I don't watch baseball... I don't care what they do.

          Also, in this particular post, I am talking about the local fans b/c the post involves a local writer. LA fans have no stake in Public opinion of Pacer players, so it didn't make sense to bring them up. My argument here is that a local sportswriter could do something to benefit some of the people who buy his paper... Indiana Pacer fans. I'm assuming that most of the people who read Kravits column are Pacer/Colts fans. I can tell you that my wife doesn't read his articles.

          I just saw JMV and Kevin Lee on TV, who both stated the frustration of sports fans over the incident. Kravitz is alienating his prime constituency, the Pacer fans, by laying down and smiling about the suspensions. Even if he offends a non-Pacer fan, it doesn't matter.

          You are simply viewing this through the lenses of a Pacers fans glasses & almost anybody doesn't see this as either fair or at the very least justice.
          I agree that many people see this as fair, but I still think they are very much uninformed when making their decisons. If they are making their decisions based on emotion and the spin they've seen from the National Sports media... why wouldn't they think it is fair? GIGO That is one of my primary arguments here, give people something balanced to view.

          I also don't think I'm as blinded by Pacer glasses as you would think. If I were a true homer I'd be in favor for no suspensions for Indiana and heavy suspensions for Detroit. I've based all my arguments surrounding the suspensions on past suspensions. I'm not sure how you can be more objective than that. I've even stated that Ben Wallace's suspension is excessive based on prior punishments.

          I don't think your problem is with Kravits. He's just a bomb thrower.
          In general, I don't have a problem with Kravits. However, instead of trying to champion our guys he buried them. Essentially, I think that sucks and I do have a problem with him on this one particular subject.

          I still don't beleive that 100% of Indiana citizens are behind you on this either. I know you may not believe me, but there are those of us that are Pacers fans that don't think much of Ron Artest. I like his capabilities as a player but I'm not at all enamored with the baggage he brings to the team & this includes his on court antics.I know you disagree. I understand you disagree. But can you not at least acknowledge that not all Pacers fans or Indy residents are 100% behind the players & think that David Stern is the devil?
          Again, I don't care what the average local Indiana resident thinks. They think Artest=Mean, NBA Players=Spoiled, Suspend Him= As long as you want. I'm confident some people think he should have been suspended for life. I worry with the folks that actually buy the tickets, watch the team, etc. And you should hear non-Pacer fans after I talk to them. "Oh, you mean another player (Maxwell) has went in the stands before? And he only got 10 games?" Anybody with a good sense of logic will at least see how that seems unjust based on prior enforcement. I mean face it, any penalty (including banning for life) seems just if you are using your gut or emotion in making the decision. If only more people had all the facts... I digress.

          And yes Peck, I understand those who don't like Ron. As a matter of fact, he drives me absolutely insane. I'm just one who seems to think A) His positives outweigh his negatives and B.) That overall he has shown the ability to improve his behavior. There are examples of players, ie Rasheed Wallace, where they do come around.

          If we could trade him for somebody comparable, I'd be all for it... but it isn't going to happen. The best thing we can do is try to help him with his maturity. It may reach a point where cutting him is the best thing we could do.

          However, it has been proven in the past (Rodman,Maxwell,Laimbeer) that you can win a championship even when one of your guys is a little off kilter. Defense wins championships and the guy can flat out defend.

          But hey, this involves Jax and JO as well. I haven't said much about Jax, b/c of all the players his suspension seems about right to me. JO is screwed more than anybody else, but it just doesn't matter. Since the appeal process won't play out before his suspension is up... belaboring it seems mute.

          Artest is the one guy who could get some relief re: playing time due to the length of his suspension. And as another posted just stated, one can dislike Artest and still feel the suspension is excessive.
          “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
          motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
          Reggie Miller

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

            Just a couple of things really cause I think were going in circles.

            1. You would have (IMO) a lot more of a beef with Kravits if he was being hypocritical about Ron. But to his credit this guy has been on the dump Artes wagon all summer long. Remember it was Bob, not Mark who let it be known to the world that the entire playoff migraine, etc. was a lie & that the star willingly participated in it. So the fact that Bob is just saying "I told you so" may be irritating but it is consistant.

            2. You are underestimating the amount of Pacers fans that are fed up with Artest as well. I'm not the only ticket holder who would be happy to see Ron playing in a Clippers jersey next year. Now I admit we are in the minority right now. But don't assume that everybody loves dear old Ronnie. My gripes with him are old & long standing plus mine are on court issues not the invisible off court issues that we only can assume on.

            3. We are just having a general disconnect here about fans in general. You keep saying local sports shows, local fans, etc., etc. This is just one of those times where I will live on the planet Mars & you can live on the planet Saturn. I just can't see why you can't see where Stern was seeing the bigger picture & you can't see why I can't see where Stern rushed to judgement & screwed our team. I can accept this, we just see it differantly.


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

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

              1. Good point on number one. It hasn't changed my opinion, but a good point nonetheless.

              2. The funny thing on this is that I don't think I've communicated well if you think I'm enamored with Artest. I grew up idolizing pretty straight laced guys like Johnny Bench (when I watched baseball) and Roger Staubach. Artest certainly doesn't fit that criteria.

              Everybody is fed up with Artest including me. This is just a quandry. If we could get fair trade value for him, I'd walk him to the airport. Unfortunately we won't get that. So the best case scenario is he comes around, worse case... we cut him. Man I wish he could come around with maturity b/c he has such a passion for "D."

              Most of my defense of Artest has been in the spirit of justice, not "Rah Rah" Ron. I don't think you and I are as far apart on Ron as you may think.

              3. Can you just explain to me why Stern cares what the world in general thinks about the suspensions? This isn't meant to be a circular argument, and I'm okay if we live on different planets. I've told you that I don't think the general public matters b/c they don't by tickets. In my opinion this issue will be dead and buried with them long before NBA fans forget it. Why does Stern care about people who don't support his league anyway?
              “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
              motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
              Reggie Miller

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

                Originally posted by brichard
                3. Can you just explain to me why Stern cares what the world in general thinks about the suspensions? This isn't meant to be a circular argument, and I'm okay if we live on different planets. I've told you that I don't think the general public matters b/c they don't by tickets. In my opinion this issue will be dead and buried with them long before NBA fans forget it. Why does Stern care about people who don't support his league anyway?
                Fair enough question. We have to look at this from a couple of levels to understand where I think Stern was coming from.

                1. Let's forget John Q. Public for a min. because if that were the case the you are correct, Stern would be wrong to hold them in high regard. However, coperate sponsors are a totally differant story. The N.B.A. has millions & millions of $$$ paid each year by people buying suites & advertising. Let's just go with this for a moment & see if I can make any sense, which I freely admit I probably won't.

                Scenario # 1. Stern issues a 10 suspension for Ron Artest, Jax & J.O. get 5 games. The general public is outraged because basically Ron will be losing probably $100,000.00 (or close to it) with this suspension. J.O. & Jax something similar because they make more per game so they will lose close to the same amount. John Q. Public sees this as a mild slap on the wrist because each of these guys are multi-millionaires. Now you & I understand money is money but that will seem like nothing to them. Now Suzie Q. Public is so offended by what she see's & the horror that is causes her children that she & her group of fellow concerned mothers decide that something should be done. They decide that the N.B.A. is only going to protect their own financial interest so they decide to do what most of these groups do when they have an issue. They write letters to the sponsors & get a group of let's say 5,000 to join in their letter campaign. They target the Nestle corp. for their attack. Now Nestle gets nervous because they have a group of 5,000 people threatening to boycott their products & with the overall tone of the newsmedia after the incident they know that that 5,000 could quickly escaltate to 10-20,000 people. So in their best interest they decide it is wise at this time to end their association with the N.B.A. causing Stern to have to change the name of a few awards & the all-star game & losing millions of $$$ in revenue.

                You think that that scenario is to far off?

                Scenario # 2.

                With light suspensions this never ends. The news media (not the sports media) keeps at this night & day & continually gives the NBA a black eye all season long. Again this is going to go back to corp. sponsor, but when it comes time to re-up their ads. a lot of them will bail because the viewership is not what it used to be. Plus there is always the fact that the continual bad press would drive away some fans.

                As it is now the only people he has to worry about are Indiana Pacers fans & let's be honest, most of us will still be here either way.

                As it is he is being hailed as a hero by everybody outside the fan base of this team.

                I know that neither of these are the best scenarios but it's the best I could come up with off of the top of my head at the moment.


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

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

                  Originally posted by Peck
                  Fair enough question. We have to look at this from a couple of levels to understand where I think Stern was coming from.

                  1. Let's forget John Q. Public for a min. because if that were the case the you are correct, Stern would be wrong to hold them in high regard. However, coperate sponsors are a totally differant story. The N.B.A. has millions & millions of $$$ paid each year by people buying suites & advertising. Let's just go with this for a moment & see if I can make any sense, which I freely admit I probably won't.

                  Scenario # 1. Stern issues a 10 suspension for Ron Artest, Jax & J.O. get 5 games. The general public is outraged because basically Ron will be losing probably $100,000.00 (or close to it) with this suspension. J.O. & Jax something similar because they make more per game so they will lose close to the same amount. John Q. Public sees this as a mild slap on the wrist because each of these guys are multi-millionaires. Now you & I understand money is money but that will seem like nothing to them. Now Suzie Q. Public is so offended by what she see's & the horror that is causes her children that she & her group of fellow concerned mothers decide that something should be done. They decide that the N.B.A. is only going to protect their own financial interest so they decide to do what most of these groups do when they have an issue. They write letters to the sponsors & get a group of let's say 5,000 to join in their letter campaign. They target the Nestle corp. for their attack. Now Nestle gets nervous because they have a group of 5,000 people threatening to boycott their products & with the overall tone of the newsmedia after the incident they know that that 5,000 could quickly escaltate to 10-20,000 people. So in their best interest they decide it is wise at this time to end their association with the N.B.A. causing Stern to have to change the name of a few awards & the all-star game & losing millions of $$$ in revenue.

                  You think that that scenario is to far off?
                  With scenario 1 couldn't he (Stern) simply levied a hefty $$$ fine to the individuals to go along with lighter suspensions and pacified both sides? IE: Media, corp sponsors and John Q Public would have their pound of flesh (seeing players lose -big- dollars and still some games), team and fans would have their players back in a more 'record-friendly' time period.

                  Go ahead and throw in a requirement that Artest get medical help.... or let him still be the scapegoat due to past behavior and still have longest suspension.

                  -

                  I am starting to sense something else coming into the equation. Fan anger and fan apathy. Neither of which is good for the Indiana Pacers. Should any punishment that can potentially hurt the Pacer -organization- to that degree deserve a second look?

                  Even if the punishments serve the initial greater good of the league's image, should one team and its fans be put in this position when there could be options and compromises that could still suffice? Particularly when taken in the light that there were mitigating circumstances and plenty of blame to go around.

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

                  ------

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

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

                    I guess my biggest problem is that I watch way to much cable news. In a sad way during certain times I am almost adicted to it . However a side affect of this is that I see what is said all of the time.

                    So thus I was accutley aware of the public perception that this was going to hell right away.

                    Your first scenario makes some sense, but I'm telling you that there were entire segments dedicated to whether or not Ron should ever be allowed to play again. There were more people for him recieving a lifetime ban than you would imagine.

                    Look guys I'm not arguing that what was done was 100% correct I'm just saying that outside of this forum & outside of the fan base of the Indiana Pacers there is not an outcry of angst that our franchise got screwed. In fact I've seen it said that "who cares what happens to the franchise" because a sports agent made the same claim on the John Gibson show & he was immeditley shot down by the entire panel.

                    Let's not kid ourselves here, the reason the suspension was so severe was because it was Ron Artest.

                    Let's exchange Ron for Reggie & do you really think that suspension would have been for a whole season? I doubt it. Ron has a history & right or wrong it was held against him.


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

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

                      With the way the media was handled after the incident, as example see the league's interference with ESPN boradcasts, you still prefer the opinion of that to your own well based opinion upon facts you saw and what you know is right or wrong?

                      As for salary loss, Ron with 10 games would lose around 750 thousand, not 10, Jax with around 300 thousand and JO with 5 around 900 thousand (very rough numbers).

                      It still does not weigh into the scales of justice that the length of the sentence is considered "just", why was Maxwell's 10 games just?
                      Also Justice is a two edge sword, often (rightly?) depicted by the "the scales" of justice.
                      Do you really feel that "justice" has been served? that all those in the wrong were punished and or held responsible for their actions? that not all the blame was thrown on 1 scapegoat? that not the publlic opinion was "steered" toward Artest?

                      Add all those answers up and then without considering what the tele tells you the people think, add ONE BIG consideration: If people really think about this, would they say what is being said they are saying?

                      Now, not the opinion of the "directed masses" but your own opinion is what matters.

                      Defending the sentence with "the masses want it" is not a defense, that is giving in to the same riot mentality that has steered this entire affair, mob rule has never been a good thing for anyone, let alone in this case.
                      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

                        Originally posted by Peck
                        I guess my biggest problem is that I watch way to much cable news. In a sad way during certain times I am almost adicted to it . However a side affect of this is that I see what is said all of the time.

                        So thus I was accutley aware of the public perception that this was going to hell right away.

                        Your first scenario makes some sense, but I'm telling you that there were entire segments dedicated to whether or not Ron should ever be allowed to play again. There were more people for him recieving a lifetime ban than you would imagine.

                        Look guys I'm not arguing that what was done was 100% correct I'm just saying that outside of this forum & outside of the fan base of the Indiana Pacers there is not an outcry of angst that our franchise got screwed. In fact I've seen it said that "who cares what happens to the franchise" because a sports agent made the same claim on the John Gibson show & he was immeditley shot down by the entire panel.

                        Let's not kid ourselves here, the reason the suspension was so severe was because it was Ron Artest.

                        Let's exchange Ron for Reggie & do you really think that suspension would have been for a whole season? I doubt it. Ron has a history & right or wrong it was held against him.

                        I know what you are saying and I am perfectly fine with throwing Artest to the wolves because he had used up his 'benefit of the doubt' cards long ago.

                        I'd understand if some court or arbitor would pull him back from the wolfpack tho and claim his suspension to be biased, and excessive compared to precedent. But then, even if that happened I'm fine with waving bye to Artest unless he seeks analysis, help and would be sincere. Honestly, he should be doing that now without anyone 'ordering it'.

                        I'm arguing more for JO and SJax. Those are two players who I think should still be carrying their 'benefit of the doubt' cards. I think their suspensions were excessive, especially in comparison to Detroit's punishment and also precedent. JO didn't even go into the stands.

                        I'm also inclined to believe that there was a rush to judgement and that Stern should've handed down indefinite suspensions (for the bigger targets) and taken longer to decide the players' fate... possibly allowing the police a couple of weeks to complete their investigation as well as to let things simmer down and decide from a more objective viewpoint instead of a kneejerk reaction.

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

                        ------

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

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

                          I believe the reason the issue did settle down from the national news story it became was precisly the fact that Stern acted swiftly & with authority. I think he put out a lot of fires by doing just what he did.

                          But as to the suspensions themselves.

                          The one I have a real problem with is Jackson. David Harrison did something similar to what Jax did & did not even suffer a one game penalty.

                          Everybody on here is willing to throw him out to the wind because he looked crazy on t.v. but as I pointed out at the party everything he did was provoked.

                          Ben pushes Ron. Jax turns to go towards them only to be shoved (hard) in the back by R. Wallace. This starts the problem. Then Lindsey Hunter actually shoves him again (he may have even thrown a punch but at this point I don't remember & don't have time to look at right now). He then starts getting crap from Rip Hamilton. By this time it looks like Jax wants to fight the entire Piston roster (for all I know he may have wanted to).

                          Then he goes into the stands. His first step was to go towards Ron, but immediately he is hit in the face by a beer thrown at point blank range. He then swings at that guy. He is stopped by Artest then Gill. Then he turns around & sees this John Green pounding Ron on the head so he goes & hits him once.

                          That's it, that's where it ended. Jax just left the court after that. Actually he was the second player off of the floor.

                          I have no problem with the suspension as it stood but since Harrison did something very very similar & got nothing????

                          Artest, IMO, was a culmination of multiple offenses. I think U.B. has something when he says Stern actually might want him out of the N.B.A. (I don't know if that is the case but I could see it).

                          J.O. This is the one that is unpopular with almost everybody & the reason it is is because J.O. does not have a trouble makers rep. However what he did in some ways is worse than what either Jax or Ron did.

                          A. Uniformed unarmed security has to be respected. Maybe not to the extent a police officer should be, but damn close IMO. Would he have tossed an NBA ref. who was holding him back? I'll tell you the answer to that one right now. NO!!! Because to do so would probably put him with Ron out for the season. Would he have done that to a uniformed Auburn Hills Policeman? Again I'll give you the answer, No!!! Because he would then be spending the night in jail not on the bus. The security was clearly marked & J.O. clearly knew who he was, he just didn't care. Like it or not the uniform has to come with some respect because of other long term implications. If a player doesn't respect it then why should any fan ever listen to them?

                          B. He hit a man who was in a defenseless position. He better than God right now that he slipped & the guy suffered no injury's from the incident because I believe once injury occurs in MI it becomes a class C felony. But either way there was no justification to hit a man while he was down, no matter where he was in the building. On the floor, in the stands, in the bathroom it does not matter. You do not get to have free shots at people just because you want to hit somebody.

                          A.J. He clearly was confused about the guy & Ron. So he hit him but it was an honest mistake. Again I come back to the Harrison thing. Why did he get nothing but A.J. got five games? I think this one was a little overboard myself.

                          I really don't know what else there is to say about this thing, we're all pretty clear on where we stand.


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

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

                            Peck, let me get this straight, you excuse Jax because of the provocations you list, but condemn Ron who was: pushed twice by BW, then had a towel and a headband thrown on him (again BW) and then to top it off had a cup thrown in his face from the stands?

                            to me that is some weird circular reasoning i fail to see the logic behind, what's good for the geese et cetera.

                            Not sure though if that is what you are saying, gladly read your answer.
                            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

                              Originally posted by able
                              Peck, let me get this straight, you excuse Jax because of the provocations you list, but condemn Ron who was: pushed twice by BW, then had a towel and a headband thrown on him (again BW) and then to top it off had a cup thrown in his face from the stands?

                              to me that is some weird circular reasoning i fail to see the logic behind, what's good for the geese et cetera.

                              Not sure though if that is what you are saying, gladly read your answer.
                              As logical as I can be, which I admit isn't much, I will try & explain my reasoning.

                              1. I would have had zero problem if Ron would have hit Ben. Matter of fact I would have even gained respect for him.

                              2. The cup did not hit him in the face. The cup skimed off of his right upper chest area & at most some liquid came out on him. Not much mind you but some.

                              3. Ron only knew the area from where the cup came, he had no idea who actually threw it.

                              Let us never forget one thing. Ron Artest went after the wrong fan

                              If nobody stopped Ron would he have held down every person in that section until he found the right person?

                              Now would it have been ok if he went after the right one? No, of course not. However it would have made more sense.

                              4. I am NOT excusing or agreeing with or saying it's ok with what Jackson did. I am just saying that Harrison basically did the same thing & that he got zero penaltys.

                              5. I will not be a hypocrite about this either. I don't like Ron Artest, I haven't liked Ron Artest for a long long time. I will say just like Stern said, I can't say that Ron's past transgressions don't enter into my mind when I consider my thoughts on this issue.


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

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Kravitz just said something that really bothers me

                                Peck,

                                I hear you and understand where you are coming from, but I guess I just don't buy into it. There are a few key points I think are good to keep in mind.

                                1. Security is the key- This is the real issue at hand, not what players do/don't do. The fans need to feel secure that other fans and players aren't going to attack them. The fan issue has been building (including AI's comments about Indiana fans) for years. I think it is far more likely a child is going to hear some drunk yelling profane language than the child will be stomped by an NBA player.

                                Baseballs black eye came from a fan attacking an assistant coach. Artest will certainly be remembered for this event, but the fans are equally as scary. Blindly throwing a chair, dropping beers down below, throwing everything on the floor... that is scary.

                                Get some guys with Tasers (sp?) and train them to use them. If Stern is really worried about those folks, that is what will set their peace of mind. Stern may also feel the alienation from groups that claim the fines as racial in nature. There is a pro and a con for every decision.

                                2. There are other options- We keep acting like the only way Stern keeps people happy is to suspend Artest 'til Kingdom come. He could have sent a strong message by giving Ron a suspension to the AllStar break, and to top it off issued an edict that any future crowd entries will result in a lifetime NBA ban. You now have set your deterrent without crushing a team. It sends a strong message and also doesn't alienate the people of Indiana.

                                3. Explain Artests History to me- I tried starting a separate thread on this subject and got little response. I want to know what Artest has done to really be the "menace" he is portrayed as. He may be worse than I know, I honestly don't know. I have no recollection of seeing him ever throwing fists at another player. He shoved Mel Daniels (which was classless) and he has a fondness for breaking things. However, is he really (in regards to physical violence) in the same league as a Barkley, Rodman, or even Malone?

                                I understand why you wouldn't like him as a player for some of the bonehead things he's done (ie rap album,) but I still get the feeling the "legend" of Ron is a bit worse than the reality.

                                4. Do you really feel that it is best for this team to lose Artest?- Would you really cut the defensive player of the year and get nothing for him? I know emotion gets into all our decisions, and I also know team chemistry is important. But to spend his salary for nothing or to trade him for leftovers... do you think that is best for this team. As much as I can't stand his erratic behavior, I can't logically justify cutting him loose. Can you?

                                5. You've lost me on the SJax comparison- If you are defending Jax over Artest, it seems you do have a clear double standard going on.
                                “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
                                motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
                                Reggie Miller

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X