Tweet
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
Oh boy. An internet fight !!
Oh boy. An internet fight !!
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
-
-
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
Comment
-
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
I'm not cherry picking, it's here plain as day. I'm not trying to start anything, I just want you to remove that comment.Originally posted by Jonathan View PostLast edited by duke dynamite; 03-18-2010, 11:35 PM.
Comment
-
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
To put this kindly, you need to grow up and look in the mirror.Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
I personally attack you and others on this board? I refuted your post on Big Ben because:
A: Peyton has 0.0% relevance to the matter of this thread.
B. It doesn't matter if Roethlisberger can part the Red Sea better than Moses, it has 0.0% relevance to the matter of this thread.
C. The notion that Ben is clutch in the Super Bowl is questionable.
I rolleyed the last part of your post because:
A. It's a horrible stereotype.
B. It's misogynistic.
C. It too, has 0.0% relevance to the matter of this thread.
I didn't respond to anything else. I never said you didn't have a "right to comment on the Big Ben Situation". I questioned your fanaticism of the Colts, and you responded by saying that you haven't rooted for the team since December 27th, 2009. That was my closest "attack" on you, and you pretty much agreed with it. You're the one making mountain ranges out of ant hills.
Yet ironically you're trying to play the victim here. That somehow everyone is out to attack you personally, when you go ahead and attack duke dynamite later in the thread, by calling him a cheerleader.
Then to also personally attack Bball when you thought it was someone else, so I guess you can add an attempted personal attack on Pacer Dude.
Oh wait you made up for it.Originally posted by Jonathan
Not to mention the fact how you were talking about Dan Dakich.Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
He got that all, because you don't like his radio show.Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
It's not like I'm going through years of posts, and just finding bits and pieces here and there. This is just stuff from the last couple of days and doesn't even include the things that the mods were gracious enough to delete.
You need to grow some thicker skin if you're threatening people to fights when someone responds your posts. Especially when you have no problem dishing it out.
Originally posted by Natston;n3510291Comment
-
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
The best part is that I didn't mention the Colts once in any post. I was just commenting about his sexist and ignorant comment.Originally posted by Natston View Post
Jon, I'm sorry if you've had bad experiences with women, but to call them all out as "liars for attention" is just plain wrong.Comment
-
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
True.Originally posted by Natston View Post
Nah. Sexual assault happens all the time, but not to 2x Super Bowl winning QBs. How many sexual assault cases were filed on college campuses this month? We're not talking about those. This only makes news in Indiana because Ben has won a couple of Super Bowls.B. It doesn't matter if Roethlisberger can part the Red Sea better than Moses, it has 0.0% relevance to the matter of this thread.
Santonio Holmes begs to differ. (So does Kurt Warner.) But I suppose we could argue that Antwaan Randle-El is a more clutch Super Bowl QB than Manning if you want to only think of Ben as a 24 year old SB winning QB.C. The notion that Ben is clutch in the Super Bowl is questionable.
True.I rolleyed the last part of your post because:
A. It's a horrible stereotype.
True.B. It's misogynistic.
Not true. Charges have not been filed yet. The investigation is ongoing. Indications are that this case is going to be a he-said, she-said situation again of "did whatever happen constitute an assualt". The "clues" suggest it doesn't appear they are looking at forced intercourse/ rape, and it doesn't appear that its even a "consensual intercourse with regret" situation. (Based on what little has actually been said by the people involved with the investigation so far. Of course this could change whenever more facts/ evidence comes to light.) If the evidence were really conclusive either way, we'd already see charges filed or an announcement that there is insufficient evidence to file charges. The fact that interviews seem - at this point - to be more important than forensic/ physical evidence is an interesting clue for the public which direction this is going. (Yes, I know they would like a DNA sample from Ben, but they aren't exactly moving fast on that.)C. It too, has 0.0% relevance to the matter of this thread.
I'm sure it doesn't help the police that the girl was underage and drunk. I think we probably all know victems of date-rape, sexual assault and rape get put on trial as much as the person they accuse.
If this very line of defense didn't have such a successful track record, then Jonathan's statement would be laughable. While I think he painted his comment with too wide of a brush and I don't like the way he said it, there are plenty of instances where his statement has been proven correct. That doesn't make me happy, but his comment can't be summarily dismissed even if it doesn't pass a "PC" test.
It would be prudent to let the actual people involved with the investigation reach a conclusion before anyone on the internet does. Since they haven't reached (or publicly announced) a decision one way or the other, you're actually both wrong to have made up your minds prematurely -- as far as this case goes.
What this really means is that four of us have now contributed to the eventual locking of this thread.
Let's stick to a discussion of the news and known information instead. You're all better than this.Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you
Comment
-
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
Fyi to Natston and duke, there's a good chance you are both now on his ignore list. Wanted to say something before you put any more effort into posting to him.Comment
-
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
It's making news in Indiana because it's a high profile case, Kobe Bryant got the same discussion and he has 0 Super Bowl championships.Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
I didn't downplay his last throw to Holmes, but I was simply pointing out Ben's play prior to the last drive. I said questionable, not false.Santonio Holmes begs to differ. (So does Kurt Warner.) But I suppose we could argue that Antwaan Randle-El is a more clutch Super Bowl QB than Manning if you want to only think of Ben as a 24 year old SB winning QB.
I agree 100%. What I took offense to and what I assume duke did was that he threw out that illogical and broad statement without clarifying. It's not about being PC. The victim in Kobe Bryant's case got her character questioned as it should, as should the victim here. Yes, some women lie for attention, and yes maybe the victim here did. But the way that was thrown out there, is the stuff that keeps many females on here from revealing their sexuality or posting all together.Not true. Charges have not been filed yet. The investigation is ongoing. Indications are that this case is going to be a he-said, she-said situation again of "did whatever happen constitute an assualt". The "clues" suggest it doesn't appear they are looking at forced intercourse/ rape, and it doesn't appear that its even a "consensual intercourse with regret" situation. (Based on what little has actually been said by the people involved with the investigation so far. Of course this could change whenever more facts/ evidence comes to light.) If the evidence were really conclusive either way, we'd already see charges filed or an announcement that there is insufficient evidence to file charges. The fact that interviews seem - at this point - to be more important than forensic/ physical evidence is an interesting clue for the public which direction this is going. (Yes, I know they would like a DNA sample from Ben, but they aren't exactly moving fast on that.)
I'm sure it doesn't help the police that the girl was underage and drunk. I think we probably all know victems of date-rape, sexual assault and rape get put on trial as much as the person they accuse.
If this very line of defense didn't have such a successful track record, then Jonathan's statement would be laughable. While I think he painted his comment with too wide of a brush and I don't like the way he said it, there are plenty of instances where his statement has been proven correct. That doesn't make me happy, but his comment can't be summarily dismissed even if it doesn't pass a "PC" test.
It would be prudent to let the actual people involved with the investigation reach a conclusion before anyone on the internet does. Since they haven't reached (or publicly announced) a decision one way or the other, you're actually both wrong to have made up your minds prematurely -- as far as this case goes.
What this really means is that four of us have now contributed to the eventual locking of this thread.
Let's stick to a discussion of the news and known information instead. You're all better than this.Originally posted by Natston;n3510291Comment
-
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
Then it seems we agree.Originally posted by Natston View PostIt's making news in Indiana because it's a high profile case, Kobe Bryant got the same discussion and he has 0 Super Bowl championships.
Ben > Kobe.
End of story.
Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you
Comment
-
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
I'm disturbed and frightened by this string of serious posts by Natson the last few days/weeks.
Comment
-
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
In closing and before I ignore this thread...
Jonathan if you want to have a beer summit sometime then tell me when and where.
I find some of our opinions spot on, like the passes Bird gets that JOB doesn't. PEACE OUT.
Originally posted by Natston;n3510291Comment
-
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
Funniest thing I've read in a long time. And no I don't think Peyton is a choir boy, but your fact is not a fact.Originally posted by Jonathan View PostYou know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....Comment
-
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
Heave 4 Bid I talk bad about the Great choke artist that is Peyton Manning. Duke, Natson, Pacer Dude can team up on me all they want. I have life outside PD unlike them. Just cause you post all day long on this site does not make opinion any more valid than mine.
I will be @ the game 2 morrow @ 2:30 Let me know if you guys want to meet up b 4 the game. I would love to meet you guys.Comment
-
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
You're obviously still missing my point. But that's okay, just keep drinking the Kool-Aid.Originally posted by Jonathan View PostComment
-
Re: Ben Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault by another woman
Tomlin responds
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...s&confirm=true
Tomlin: 'I’m highly concerned for our franchise and for Ben'
NFL.com
Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin expressed anxiety over the sexual-assault allegation leveled at quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, telling NFL Network's Jennifer Allen on Saturday, "I'm highly concerned for our franchise and for Ben personally."
Tomlin didn't want to say too much about the situation, acknowledging that police in Milledgeville, Ga., are still investigating a 20-year-old female college student's accusation against Roethlisberger.
"My concerns are many, but I think at this time it's kind of appropriate to watch these things and let these things run their course," Tomlin said after arriving in Orlando, Fla., for the NFL Annual Meeting, which starts Monday. "I think it would be inappropriate for me to have strong feelings one way or another with the investigation being ongoing and so forth. Like everyone else, you watch these things unfold."
Tomlin's statements echoed what Steelers president Art Rooney told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Thursday.
"I mean, look, that's one of the things, we do have a little bit of luxury of time," Rooney said. "If we were at a different point in the year, we may have to be thinking and doing something different. But at the moment, I think we're in a situation we're going to let this investigation play out and then go from there."
No criminal charges have been filed in the case, in which the woman accused Roethlisberger, 28, of sexually assaulting her in a Georgia nightclub earlier this month. Roethlisberger's attorney, Ed Garland, has said his client hasn't committed a crime.
Roethlisberger also is facing a civil lawsuit in Nevada, stemming from an alleged sexual assault in 2008. Attorney Calvin Dunlap, who represents the woman in that case, told KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh that Georgia Bureau of Investigation officials contacted him Monday looking to interview his client.Comment
Comment