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

Boston Globe: Artest suitors may be playing with fire (incl quotes from TPTB Pacers)

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

  • Boston Globe: Artest suitors may be playing with fire (incl quotes from TPTB Pacers)

    I believe these are some fresh quotes from Donnie and Rick in this article.

    And I'd not seen some of these Bird quotes either (and altho recent, they are from before Artest's trade demand)

    Highlights by me...
    -----

    Suitors of explosive Artest may be playing with fire

    By Jackie MacMullan, Globe Columnist | December 14, 2005


    The Indiana Pacers are comin' to town tonight, but the gifted, self-destructive, enigmatic Ron Artest won't be with them. Artest, who drew the largest suspension in NBA history for his prominent role in the infamous fan/player melee last Nov. 19 in Detroit, asked for a trade over the weekend, telling the Indianapolis Star that his past ''haunts him" and while he likes coach Rick Carlisle as a person, he doesn't like playing for him. Artest's Mannyesque request included a short list of desired destinations: New York or Cleveland.

    Good luck with that. At least Ramírez has 10/5 veto rights; no such arrangement exists in the NBA, which means Artest has no control over his potential landing spot. The Pacers can, if it behooves them, ship him off to the futile West Coast outpost known as Clipperland (oh wait, I mean Lakerland) or that frozen basketball tundra in Toronto.

    In the meantime, Artest has left his team holding the bag -- again. He remains on the roster but is inactive, with pay, for the rest of the week.

    ''I'm disappointed," Carlisle said by phone. ''I felt as though I was one of Ronnie's biggest supporters."

    ''Hey, I love the kid, but it's not working out," sighed Pacers president Donnie Walsh.


    Walsh emphasized that under normal circumstances, it's not his way to oblige a disgruntled player's trade demand, particularly when the decree is made through the media. But there is nothing ordinary about what Artest has done to this organization, which stood by him after he delivered one of the ugliest black eyes in history to the game.

    His 73-game suspension last season reduced a championship-caliber team to rubble. Artest appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated shoulder to shoulder with general manager Larry Bird this fall and vowed to make amends. Instead, for the second season in a row, he has ransacked his team's chemistry and its chance to establish itself as a viable threat to Detroit and Miami in the East.

    Before he embarked on a scouting trip in Spain, and before Artest's trade demands became public, Bird acknowledged that his forward was struggling to define his role. He also expressed concern about his players questioning themselves -- and each other.

    ''They aren't playing as hard as I'd like," Bird said. ''That's hard for me to say about these guys, but right now it's true."

    And yet, Bird said, lack of effort is not one of Artest's shortcomings.

    ''Ronnie puts in his time," Bird said. ''I don't worry about him being in shape. I don't worry about his effort. The only time I worry is when he loses his focus. When he has his focus, everything is perfect."


    Bird had barely punched in his frequent flier number and eased his creaky back into his first-class seat for Madrid when his best defender, who leads the league in steals, demonstrated how quickly his focus can go haywire. In addition to stating that he wanted a trade, Artest suggested that he draws obvious mismatches almost every time he has the ball, yet rarely is allowed to exploit them.

    'It's not my fault," he told the Star. ''Every time somebody is on me, it's a mismatch. It messes up the offense. I like Coach as a person, but I don't like playing for him."


    Carlisle undoubtedly would find those comments amusing if they weren't so damning. Not only did Artest lead the team in minutes (37.7) before he went into exile, he also was averaging 19.4 points and 15 shots -- second only to All-Star center Jermaine O'Neal.

    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Bird was aware of Artest's frustration with his offensive touches.

    ''I know exactly what's going on in his mind," Bird said. ''He's thinking to himself, 'I work my *** off on defense on every single play, every single day. I should be allowed to take two bad shots a game.' And you know what? I agree with him.

    ''It was the same thing with Robert Parish. He ran the court in transition all the time. Most other centers didn't, but he did -- every time. So, once in a while, when I was running the break, I'd wait and give him the ball, because he deserved it."

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    While Artest's offensive game is underrated because of the impact his defense has, he is delusional if he thinks he's Kobe Bryant and can break anyone down on demand. The need to be the main man on both ends of the floor should give all potential suitors pause.

    Oh, and there will be suitors. In spite of his obvious instability, Artest remains an intriguing weapon, and since the Pacers are not dealing from a position of strength, they will have to scrape to get 60 cents on the dollar.

    The Celtics, like almost every other team, undoubtedly will explore the Artest landscape. Picture this hypothetical bantering: Boston will offer Mark Blount (his salary is a match). The Pacers will laugh, then counter with a multi-player offer that includes Artest and Paul Pierce as the principals. Now it's Boston's turn to laugh. Once the clubs get down to brass tacks, the Celtics could (and should) take a long, hard look at Ricky Davis for Artest.

    Sure, Davis has been a valuable No. 2 scorer and has taken some of the pressure off Pierce, but when you are talking pure ability, the discussion isn't even close. Davis is a ''nice" player; Artest is a special player. And isn't it obvious the Celtics are in dire need of some defensive intensity?

    Of course, as we have documented, Artest is unstable, immature, and represents a huge gamble from a chemistry standpoint. Davis is well-liked by his teammates, although he, too, has maturity issues and persists in counting his shots. The major difference is that his meltdowns generally occur on the team bus, not on the basketball court.

    If Boston considers Artest too radioactive, that would be understandable. Yet the curious thing about Artest is that even after all the damage he has done in Indiana, no one has supported him more than Bird.


    ''Look," Bird said, ''what Ron Artest did last season was wrong. No one should ever confront a fan like that. You just can't.

    ''But I know Ronnie. I've talked to him a lot. I saw him here all summer, in the gym all the time, working out. I know deep down he feels so bad about what he did to this organization and his teammates.

    ''He's paid the price for it. He missed almost an entire year. He's had to face all of us, his teammates, the coaches, and the front office, every day, knowing he cost us a lot of money.

    ''I keep telling him, 'Just play the game.' Just put it behind you and play the game."

    Remember, these words were spoken before Artest's latest blow-up. Larry couldn't be reached for an update on his assessment of his SI cover mate, but the rest of the team has won two straight without Artest and is prepared to move on.



    ''Obviously we'll miss a lot of the things he does," Carlisle said, ''but the last two games, we've played together."

    ''He's got too much baggage," Walsh said. ''Before this, he was actually very stable.

    ''But whenever he did something or said something during practice, everyone was on edge. The coach, his teammates, me, and Larry. We'd all sit there and say, 'Oh no, what's he doing?' Even if he wasn't doing anything, you could feel the tension."

    Walsh acknowledged that Artest could wake up this morning, change his mind, and run back toward Carlisle & Co. with his arms wide open.


    This time, he'd better not be counting on a warm embrace in return.

    Jackie MacMullan is a Globe columnist. Her e-mail address is macmullan@globe.com.

    http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...ing_with_fire/
    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

  • #2
    Re: Boston Globe: Artest suitors may be playing with fire (incl quotes from TPTB Pace

    Originally posted by Bball

    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Bird was aware of Artest's frustration with his offensive touches.

    ''I know exactly what's going on in his mind," Bird said. ''He's thinking to himself, 'I work my *** off on defense on every single play, every single day. I should be allowed to take two bad shots a game.' And you know what? I agree with him.

    ''It was the same thing with Robert Parish. He ran the court in transition all the time. Most other centers didn't, but he did -- every time. So, once in a while, when I was running the break, I'd wait and give him the ball, because he deserved it."

    ------------------------------------------------------------
    So what is Bird saying here? ....There's a player that wouldn't cut Artest some slack and jumped him for 'bad shots'- or a player that wouldn't get him the ball? ...That Carlisle has been too tough on him? I don't think it's the fans or press being down on him for taking bad shots that he's talking about (is it?).

    It's an interesting comment. Especially in light of what has transpired not long afterwards (and this season). But what is he implying? ...Or am I reading too much into that comment?

    And as a side note: What Bird is talking about is what I think Sarunas brings to the team.

    -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

    Working...
    X