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

Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

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

  • Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

    sand?

    I've been thinking about what Uncle Buck has been saying & I'm begining to think he was right.

    He has expressed the theory that the Pacers, as we now know them, were built with Ron Artest as one of two anchors on the team & that without the one anchor the team is going to float adrift. If he is gone for good he thinks that maybe we need to re-evaluate the entire team.

    If this is all true & as of now I'm beginning to think that it may be the right answer. Were the Pacers smart to do this?

    The warning signs have been present since the first season he was here that while he is an outstanding person he sometimes is not the most reliable of people.

    Now it's a common theme that Donnie Walsh is a God to fans in Indiana but no matter what you think of him as a g.m. he has always been a good people person & does not bring the dregs of the NBA to our city. Now Ron is a special case, he is not the dregs of the NBA. From what we are told he is a nice person face to face & other than some domestic disputes the local police do not frequent his house.

    But if this is true (& if you think about trading Al & Brad it must be true) then why would a guy who is such a solid people person build the house on a player who has had such odd & erratic behavior over the years. Even if he didn't melt down on the 19th it was just a matter of time before something else would have happened. (of course that's just a theory but history is on my side in this one)

    I guess the question that I want everybody to answer is two fold.

    1. Is U.B. right? Did we build our entire team around Ron & Jermaine?

    2. Was this a mistake & if so why did Walsh do it?

    Now for the love of God could we please avoid the entire "Ron Artest is the man & we need to love & support our Pacers" talk. We're all fans here, I'm just asking an honest question.


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

  • #2
    Re: Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

    1: Jermaine I think is obvious. He's the true center-piece of the team. But I also think that the way they've stuck by Artests behaviour since he came here has shown that he is to them a vital part of the team. That's their opinion, I'm thinking that while he is a unique talent in this league I don't think he can't be replaced.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

      Undoubtably. Artest and JO were to be the 1-2 punch that you see on most championship teams.

      I don't think anyone saw anything like this coming. A 10 games suspension for an on court fight... yeah... probably... that would be in the realm of possibility. But I don't think anyone saw this. Not a full season suspension and not an altercation of this nature.

      And I imagine some thought went into the idea that the team could withstand an Artest suspension here or there as long as he would continue to make amends and hopefully continue to minimize those type of things (more or less he had). And I'm guessing they felt they could deal with the other stuff internally with the help of a willing local press.

      And they could hopefully keep his trade value high enough to make a trade if the internal problems threatened to explode.

      On 11/19/04 all plans, contingency and otherwise, went out the window.

      I bet there wasn't one plan that didn't have a replacement for Artest as part of the mix if they made the decision that they needed to cut their ties. IOW, nobody considered losing Ron for the season in this way. Other than injury there was probably a backup plan (trade) that they had in their back pocket. It might not have been the most palaple option but I bet there was something.

      -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


      • #4
        Re: Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

        Pacers chose Artest over Harrington. I think it's that simple.

        Brad doesn't factor into the equation as much since he's a center and the Pacers were fools on that one.

        They've also been saving for the future with Bender.

        Artest was the anchor with Oneal, and they certainly didn't expect this to happen. Now everything has changed. Pre-brawl, the Pacers were looking like the beasts of the East. Everything post-brawl is nothing but a jumbled mess.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

          1. If you believe the rumors are true that we tried to unload Artest in the off-season, then no, they didn't build the team around both of them. If you believe that this was not the case, like myself, then yes, they have built the team around these two players.

          2. I do not think this was a mistake on their part. Like many of us here believe, both Artest and O'neal can win us a championship. Sure there was a chance of losing Artest to suspension... and there is also a chance that O'neal gets hurt and is out for the season. It's just not something they planned on.

          The two critical pieces are here, we'll just have to wait a year.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

            Originally posted by Peck
            sand?
            1. Is U.B. right? Did we build our entire team around Ron & Jermaine?

            2. Was this a mistake & if so why did Walsh do it?

            Now for the love of God could we please avoid the entire "Ron Artest is the man & we need to love & support our Pacers" talk. We're all fans here, I'm just asking an honest question.
            There is no question about that I think that Ron Artest get's the short end of support on here which I find it disappointing as Pacer fans...but to the point...

            1) UncleBuck is completely right...this team was built around Ron and J.O. Especially this year! There is no denying that. Ron is a vital part of this team and I believe is right there with J.O. as his importance on this team. I think what Ron brings to the table is absolutely amazing.

            2) Was it a mistake? Why would it be a mistake? The Indiana Pacers and Donnie Walsh have gone through so many agonizing years going through the playoffs and always coming up short...we have been so close to the promise land so many times and have always needed that missing piece (except the year we took Bulls to game 7, we should have won it!) and Ron Artest is certainly an amazing basketball player.

            Donnie Walsh realized what an amazing talent Ron Artest is. The scary thing about Ron Artest is that year by year he takes his game and elevates it into a whole different level. I don't believe Ron is yet at his peak and next season he can be MVP in this league...I am serious about that...we have 2 MVP candidates on this team and Ron was playing amazing being a 90% free-throw shooter...shooting threes....dominating on the inside...and just dominating on defense each and every game...the intensity Ron brings to our team makes our team defense one of the top 3 in the NBA and without Ron...well, it just sucks! Ron's intensity makes everyone else know they better be playing the best defense they can!

            Peck, you point out we got rid of Harrington and Miller...the Brad Miller argument is mute...we needed to make sure we got J.O. and unfortunately Miller wanted to see what the market offered him and we simply could not afford him anymore...now to Baby Al...I love Al Harrington but he is no where near the player and will never be near the level of player Ron Artest is...Ron Artest is just a phenomeon.

            Certainly Ron Artest has made mistakes in his career...but his upbringings in Queensbridge and the tough environment he was raised in helped make him the type of basketball player he is...we have to look at how Ron Artest had improved his behavior dramatically over the last 2 seasons and what Donnie realized was that getting rid of Ron Artest would simply have diminished and worsened the chances of a Pacers championship dramatically.

            With Ron Artest this season I really believed we were the best team in the league and that no one could stop us. Ron Artest is just not another basketball player, the way he plays basketball is just simply not replacable and there is no way in the league that can replace Ron. The way he was playing this year was simply amazing to everyone and as I said he will continue to elevate his game.

            I know there are homers on here who want to get rid of Ron and maybe they do not care about a championship too much, but I love Ron Artest as a person as he is an amazing human being who has gone through a lot...but I certainly want to see a Pacers championship and unfortunately without Ron, it will be much more difficult and with Ron and J.O., I think we can win multiple championships....not just 1.....people don't realize the importance of Ron and will soon once Stephen comes back and we see how much of a difference Ron is for this team.

            WE LOVE YOU RONNIE!!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

              Originally posted by geetee
              1. If you believe the rumors are true that we tried to unload Artest in the off-season, then no, they didn't build the team around both of them. If you believe that this was not the case, like myself, then yes, they have built the team around these two players.

              2. I do not think this was a mistake on their part. Like many of us here believe, both Artest and O'neal can win us a championship. Sure there was a chance of losing Artest to suspension... and there is also a chance that O'neal gets hurt and is out for the season. It's just not something they planned on.

              The two critical pieces are here, we'll just have to wait a year.
              1) Even if we tried to get rid of Ron it does not mean our team wasn't built around him..we simply tried to get a player like McGrady which is one of the amazing players in the league which could have helped us...but it does not take away the notion of this team being developed around Ron.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

                Originally posted by XXSASSXX31


                With Ron Artest this season I really believed we were the best team in the league and that no one could stop us.
                Actually, there was one person that could stop us... His name: Ron Artest.

                That is what Peck is getting at. I understand what you are saying too but Peck is saying he thinks the odds were greater that Artest would derail the train, no matter how responsible he was for getting that train up the hill in the first place, before it reached the summit. (At least that is what I think he's saying).

                If you don't buy into that theory then it is a moot issue to you. But the next part that I would assume Peck feels is that we weren't winning the championship with Artest anyway so we were simply once again making motions to get close but no cigar. IOW, living on borrowed time, fooling ourselves, and wasting time and talent.

                -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


                • #9
                  Re: Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

                  Time to build around JO and the next great center...

                  David "Hulk" Harrison!









                  I can dream right?
                  You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

                    I will say compared to what we are likely to get back for Ron, it is worth it to hang on to him for next year, I think. It is risky to keep him, but unless you have Duncan, or Shaq on your team, I think you need to make some risky moves sometimes.

                    And this is coming from someone who can't stand him being on the team...
                    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

                      Originally posted by Bball
                      Actually, there was one person that could stop us... His name: Ron Artest.

                      That is what Peck is getting at. I understand what you are saying too but Peck is saying he thinks the odds were greater that Artest would derail the train, no matter how responsible he was for getting that train up the hill in the first place, before it reached the summit. (At least that is what I think he's saying).

                      If you don't buy into that theory then it is a moot issue to you. But the next part that I would assume Peck feels is that we weren't winning the championship with Artest anyway so we were simply once again making motions to get close but no cigar. IOW, living on borrowed time, fooling ourselves, and wasting time and talent.

                      -Bball
                      Did anyone really expect Ron Artest to be suspended for the season, even when the brawl happened? I understand what you are saying, but no one expected Ron Artest to have a cup thrown at his face in the first place, so I understand your point but unlike a minority on here; I can't place the majority of the blame on him since he did get attacked first. I don't think anyone thought the odds of this happening this season was even at 1%.

                      I think Peck realizes the importance of Ron Artest to win a championship....I think he just questions why Donnie built the team in that way and I made my point is Ron is so good and dynamic on how he dominates the game on both sides of the court...he is neccessary for the success of this team and Ron has learned his lesson and I know he will not go into the stands next time (he is losing 5 million as well) and he will be fine when he comes back next season (or the end of the season...you never know)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

                        Sassan,

                        While I don't agree with everything you have said, may I compliment you on the fact that the two above posts may have been the best writing you have done online that I've ever seen.

                        Your right though about one thing. Even though I am not a Ron Artest fan I do admit he is a special player & if I could just even get a partial guarantee that he would not drag the team down around him next year I would be more than happy to see him back.


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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

                          Was the trip to SA, Dallas, Phoenix and Memphis just an abberation? If not, we would have trouble winning the championship even with Artest the way these teams were running past us.
                          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

                            Originally posted by ABADays
                            Was the trip to SA, Dallas, Phoenix and Memphis just an abberation? If not, we would have trouble winning the championship even with Artest the way these teams were running past us.
                            A big reason why we were so weak is because we don't have SJAX and Ronnie...with Ronnie his defensive intensity is so strong everyone else will raise their level of defense...those games we lost on the road shows how much we missed both SJAX and Ron...but primarily Ron.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Did the Pacers build thier team on a foundation of.....

                              Not to get off topic, but we spent the #5 pick in the draft on Jonathan Bender. Shouldn't he be considered one of the building blocks of the foundation of this team or are we giving him a continual pass and putting all the blame on Ron? It's easy to say that Donnie built this team on Ron, but that simply isn't the case. Donnie acquired alot of young talent knowing that a few of them had a good possibility of panning out (Al, Ron, Bender, JO). Just because Ron panned out and Bender didn't doesn't mean we had more hope invested him than any of the others when we acquired each.
                              Can we get a new color commentator please?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X