Why is the the thead "What would you do" taken off the forum?

I've been reading many of the comments on that thread and many of them were very informative on differents aspects of the rule book.

I'm not the one who writes very much but I read most of the texts posted here and it's important to be able to come back at some point and analyse the arguments of each person which are based on articles of the rule book.

The personnal comments are certainly not welcome, and you should take out only those comments, not the entire thread.

Is there a way to get it back?

I was just lookin around for that one because I was wondering what the correct ruling was.... I need a rule book for the rule book becaue I dont always know how to read the darned thing.

The original poster might have.
 

Maybe the person that started the post deleted the entire thing? You do have that option to do so when you start a post. It might not have been the moderators at all.

Peace

No way to get it back, unless someone saved it for posterity. I do know that I have no intention of going through a thread and removing dozens of personal remarks -- now or in the future.



[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Jan 1st, 2004 at 03:21 PM]

Way to go Rich, (or make something else up) are you trying to start trouble?

LOL, is that the only part of his post that you find that will start trouble? How about his signature lol. :) I found it amusing, who cares its over now.

[/B][/QUOTE]
LOL, is that the only part of his post that you find that will start trouble? How about his signature lol. :) I found it amusing, who cares its over now. [/B][/QUOTE]

AAahhhhh, I thin, I thin, I thin I see your point. lol

When you say that you have "no intention of going through a thread and removing dozens of personal remarks -- now or in the future" is like punishing a whole classroome for one black sheep making trouble.

I taught it was the role of a moderator to differenciate between what is acceptable to be written in this forum and what is not.

Too bad. There were certainly things to be learned in that thread.

Anyway, I submitted the case to a FIBA interpreter on the site of fiba.com. If I ever get an answer and if some of you want to have a copy of that answer, leave me your email and I'll send it to you.

My email: [email protected]

Geez, Rich, let it die.

Wasn't 8 pages of direct personal attacks enough?

Now you're the one being a jacka**

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Jan 1st, 2004 at 03:20 PM]

I agree. I'm heading out, but I'll fix this thread first.

I've decided I'd rather go back to being a regular poster. I don't find it a lot of fun to come here and worry about what everyone else posts and then have to temper my comments because of some "position." Bob, Mick, and MTD make three moderators, and that's enough.

Not that it excuses me for getting personal or anything, but I certainly didn't see this same level of criticism against those who were bashing MTD in the thread I deleted. Where was all the criticism towards those people?

Rich
Back to being JSPS.

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Jan 1st, 2004 at 03:29 PM]

Rich, you deleted the thread?

Yes, I'm the culprit.

The thread was mostly personal insults from page 4 on. The meat of the thread was in another thread that MTD started that I thought was closed, but had already been deleted by another poster (I'm guessing MTD). Rather than clean up the closed thread, I thought I could revive the other one with a good history of the actual issues and make sure it was visible, but closed.

I'm sorry for exhibiting bad judgment.

Anyone want to talk about the NFL playoffs?

Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Jan 1st, 2004 at 09:50 PM]

New England's gonna take it all.

I'm more concerned about the NFC right now, since I'm an Eagles fan.

I'll be rooting for Dallas this weekend, since I'd rather see the Cowboys again than GB, who I think will dispatch Seattle and Holmgren rather easily.

Either way, both conferences are essentially toss ups.

Rich

PS - ObBasketball: I'm back on the court tomorrow after a 2 week absence from HS basketball (unless you want to count 6 8th grade games the past two Saturdays).

Also, NASO sent a press release announcing the new Officials Assault legislation in Illinois -- does any other official think that such a law is really necessary? I think it is saying that standard assault/battery laws don't really apply at a sporting event or that they aren't enforced with respect to officials.

I feel that these laws are very necessary. There have been times where i have been threatened by angry parents because i "f**ked their kids team over" People need to realize that without us, their kids wouldn't be playing ball, and that we will fight back legally if necessary.

I guess my point is: Why don't standard assault laws apply if officials get threatened? Why do we need special laws when there are already laws on the books?

This opinion extends to laws that deal with "hate crimes" as well. Aren't there already laws on the books that deal with most of the situations that hate crimes cover? Why do there need to be SPECIAL laws?

I can be convinced otherwise, I just haven't heard the compelling argument yet. I think the only reason these laws are written is that society isn't enforcing the ones we already got.

Rich

The others did not continue needling, baiting, or taunting, after the original thread was deleted. You did. That's all I was criticizing. It has nothing to do with you being a moderator, either.

As for laws regarding assault against officials, sometimes if there is a need, special sections, variations, or clarifications of existing laws are useful.

And I agree, the Pats look pretty good right now...

Actually, I wasn't referring to you. Your comment was appropriate and timely and this is the last time I'm going to mention anything to do with that thread.

Go Eagles.

Rich

Not "special" at all.
 

Those are not "special laws." They are laws that address very specific concerns in our society. Like Megan's Law, which creates registration for sex offenders and "helps" protect children from certain abuse. It is no different than having laws for is someone displays a weapon but does not use it or someone being able to go to jail for concelling a weapon in a car. The laws are there to address special concerns. And no, there were not laws that addressed hate crimes, some of the states would not be able to prosecute under certain provisions. And it also allows the Federal Government to take action as well. Now that might not be the best thing in many folks eyes, but I think for the most part what you call "special laws" as necessary. Attacking someone in a bar is much different than attacking an official on or off the court. Because if you make it an assult case, they incident might not be even prosecuted, because you treat it like the many other incidents. If you make a law adding punishment for committing specific acts, then it might make someone think twice about even attempting such an act. Because you raised the hate crime issue, I think that has brought teeth behind exsisting laws where before using racial slurs and killing someone just because they are a certain color than you, it adds to the liability and legal responsibilty of the person that committs those acts. Because before the laws, many of these cases were just thrown out, because judges and jurors would not convict folks, because many were considered "provoked" by the social structure to act in such a manner. No different as to why they did things differently with Domestic Violence laws, because police and prosecutors would turn the other cheek and not do anything. At least these laws raise awareness and require stiffer fines and jail time if committed. Before they could push these issues under the rug. And the laws that protect officials are no different in my mind.

Peace

I guess those are the two things I saw that could be considered positive:

(1) It increases public awareness that it just isn't acceptable to threaten a sports official.

(2) It puts teeth into existing laws that, for whatever reason, weren't being enforced.

I've been threatened at a car in the past by irate....idiots is the only word that comes to mind now. Technically assault, but I've been conditioned that this kind of abuse is something I signed up for when I chose to be an official -- I hopped in the car and got out of town. Looking at that and examining it objectively -- why should a stranger be able to come up to another human being at a car and shout and scream and threaten that other person just because they were officiating a sports event?

Maybe you're right -- maybe it will take legislation and the subsequent enforcement of that legislation in order to get people to realize that they need to act better. But will these new laws be enforced in the same haphazard and inconsistent fashion as the existing assault laws? Will officials still be expected to take mor ethan the average citizen because of the role they play?

Will be interesting to see. All I know is that this new law affects me, since I do work games in Illinois from time to time.

Rich