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

Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

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

  • Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

    Will Adelman, Wells be part of Kings' promising future?

    By GREG BEACHAM, AP Sports Writer
    May 6, 2006

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP)
    -- Just four months ago, the Sacramento Kings' window for a championship run appeared to be closed. A whole new window is open now, thanks to Ron Artest -- and he's determined to push his team through it.

    Although the Kings' eighth consecutive playoff trip ended Friday night with a six-game first-round loss to the San Antonio Spurs, there was an abundance of optimism and excitement in their locker room.


    After floundering through the first half of the season, Sacramento reached the playoffs and gave a profound battle to the defending NBA champions. With a more forgiving bracket, the Kings might have advanced to a later round -- something that seemed unfathomable back in January before Artest arrived in Sacramento to save the season.

    "It definitely feels like home, and I think it will be home for a long, long time," said Artest, who's under contract for at least two more years. "The season was great. (The playoff series) could have gone either way. ... In Game 5 (with the series tied 2-2), we had the game tied 93-93, and we made a couple of defensive mistakes. I can't see that happening next year."

    The Kings won 25 of their last 36 regular-season games shortly after Artest was acquired in a trade for Peja Stojakovic, the last remaining player from the 1999 roster that thrilled the NBA with its wide-open, free-flowing style in the first of eight straight trips to the playoffs.

    Coach Rick Adelman's team has a completely different look now -- and so does Adelman, a longtime offense-first coach who presided over his defense-dominated club's impressive late-season run with the same management skills that have produced 752 career victories.

    But Adelman doesn't have a contract for next season, and the Kings' decision on his future could determine whether this dramatic rebuilding project can stand up to the stress of a full season.

    "I'm really proud of the way the guys finished this season, because people had written us off -- said we were done as a franchise," said Adelman, who didn't want to discuss his future Friday night. "We've built a great foundation for the stuff we want to be able to do. I'm very optimistic about it."

    Adelman and Geoff Petrie, the Kings' president of basketball operations, will have to decide the coach's future soon -- with ample input from owners Joe and Gavin Maloof, who tentatively courted Phil Jackson last summer while Adelman was still employed by the club.

    None of the involved parties -- not Adelman, Petrie or the Maloofs -- has indicated whether Adelman expects to return, or whether he's even welcome.

    Bonzi Wells' future also will be up for discussion when he becomes an unrestricted free agent this summer after one season with Sacramento. Wells was injured for a large part of the regular season, but turned into a monster in the playoffs, terrorizing the Spurs with scoring, rebounding and tough defense.


    "It's very realistic," Wells said of a return to Sacramento. "I told them when I got here that I don't want to move any more, so if I'm not here next year, it's totally up to them. I want to be here. I want to do everything it takes to be a King for the rest of my career. ... I love the city, and I love the fans. They can sign me if they want to."

    Wells probably earned a big contract with his series, but the Kings might not be the ones to provide it if he sticks to his desire for a five- or six-year deal. Sacramento already has lengthy, expensive deals with most of its core -- and Kevin Martin, the second-year pro who made a buzzer-beating layup in Game 3 over Tim Duncan, might be ready for a starting job.

    Petrie also must decide whether changes must be made to that core. Center Brad Miller flopped in the playoffs at the end of an underwhelming season, averaging just 9.2 points and 3.0 rebounds while repeatedly getting benched in the second half.

    Mike Bibby also struggled in the postseason with a low shooting percentage and spotty defense on Tony Parker, who scored a playoff career-high 31 points in Game 6 despite a bruised right leg to close an outstanding series. Bibby and Miller both struggle on defense as well.

    But after rebuilding his entire roster over the previous 18 months, Petrie might decide to build continuity and teamwork in his core while searching for suitable role players. Martin and rookie Francisco Garcia will come back older and wiser, but the Kings could use a better backup point guard and more depth in the frontcourt.

    But as long as Artest remains the charismatic, energetic, controversy-free (well, except for his one-game playoff suspension) superstar he became in 3 1/2 months in Northern California, the Kings will be on the NBA map.

    "I'm just excited for the future," Artest said. "It's going to be good."


    Updated on Saturday, May 6, 2006 7:18 pm EDT
    LINK

    Why Not Us ?


  • #2
    Re: Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

    I'll take Bibby please...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

      I want Adelman!
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

        Originally posted by Ev_eezy
        I'll take Bibby please...
        He makes 12 mil next year, and he's got three years left on his contract.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

          Originally posted by Anthem
          He makes 12 mil next year, and he's got three years left on his contract.
          And he can play more then 70 games a season.

          I'l take Wells and let Peja go.
          My Dream Team

          PG - A.Iverson
          SG - K.Bryant
          SF - R.Artest
          PF - J.O'Neal
          C - D.Howard

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

            Originally posted by J_2_Da_IzzO
            And he can play more then 70 games a season.

            I'l take Wells and let Peja go.
            You want Wells...I thought we were trying to PURGE THIS TEAM OF KNUCKLE HEADS AND OTHER DEGINERATES Why would you want another one?
            ...Still "flying casual"
            @roaminggnome74

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

              Originally posted by J_2_Da_IzzO
              And he can play more then 70 games a season.

              I'l take Wells and let Peja go.
              We can sign Peja, we can't sign Wells.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

                I don't want Adelman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck
                  I don't want Adelman
                  Why not? I think he'd be a great fit.
                  You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

                    Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                    Why not? I think he'd be a great fit.

                    Simply put: he doesn't emphasize defense enough. That is it more than anything.

                    He also runs a very loose ship, soft practices, soft training camp, country club atmosphere

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

                      i'd take bibby in a heartbeat. the guy played 82 games this season and is one of the more consistent PG's in league.

                      think the kings would give him up for tinsley, foster, and a pick or two?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck
                        Simply put: he doesn't emphasize defense enough. That is it more than anything.

                        He also runs a very loose ship, soft practices, soft training camp, country club atmosphere
                        How do you know this?

                        Paul Westhead coached Loyola-Marymount 15-20 years ago when they averaged about 110 points per game. He said that the key was 'defense' , but it was a helter skelter defense that tried to get the other team to shoot the ball within 5 seconds of crossing the half court line.

                        So, even though they gave up a ton of points, they emphasized defense. It was key to their approach to the game.

                        For all I know, Adelman might put most of his focus on defense. I know when he coached Portland in the 89-92 era, those were GREAT defensive teams.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

                          Originally posted by Roy Munson
                          How do you know this?

                          Paul Westhead coached Loyola-Marymount 15-20 years ago when they averaged about 110 points per game. He said that the key was 'defense' , but it was a helter skelter defense that tried to get the other team to shoot the ball within 5 seconds of crossing the half court line.

                          So, even though they gave up a ton of points, they emphasized defense. It was key to their approach to the game.

                          For all I know, Adelman might put most of his focus on defense. I know when he coached Portland in the 89-92 era, those were GREAT defensive teams.

                          Well I don't like helter skelter defense.

                          And I used to watch a lot of college basketball back then and I watched a lot of Loyola-Marymount games, and they played terrible defense. And then when he coached the Nuggets it was beyond horrible.


                          That Blazers team had a number of great defenders on that team. Porter, Kersey and Buck Williams were all first team defensive type players and Clyde was pretty good also.


                          How do I know Adelman does not emphasize defense, two ways. I can tell by watching them play defense. Beyond that, the players say that, the writers say it, heck Peja said it when he became a Pacer. .

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck
                            Simply put: he doesn't emphasize defense enough. That is it more than anything.

                            He also runs a very loose ship, soft practices, soft training camp, country club atmosphere
                            Who cares? It's more important to get a coach that fits what your team needs. If he happens to not be obsessive about defense, then so be it.

                            Adelman is great dealing with the 'attitude' players, produces good offensive teams, and isn't cooky about not playing young players like Carlisle is.

                            The "defense-first" philosophy has been run into the ground here in Indiana. It's time for something different, something that addresses the needs of the team.

                            How do you know he runs a 'loose ship?'

                            Also, Adelman has produced good defensive teams when given good defensive players, IMO. It's not as if he is Don Nelson (in Dallas anyway) or something.
                            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Will Adelman, Wells,(Miller) be part of Kings' promising future?

                              SIG, There is no doubt the Pacers certainly could get a worse coach than Adelman. He's a pretty good coach, but after that I guess we just disagree on what a coach should emphasize.

                              As far as: how I know he runs a loose ship, I've read comments from former players that he runs a loose ship. There might not be anything wrong with that a lot of NBA coaches run a loose ship, but I just don't think that is the best way to coach.


                              If somehow Adelman becomes the Pacers next coach, I wouldn't be excited about and I'd have some serious concerns about it, but like I said they could do a lot worse, so I wouldn't cause a big fuss

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X