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

The Ron Artest Myth

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

  • #31
    Re: The Ron Artest Myth

    Originally posted by rabidpacersfan
    Eh. We'll be a better team with him next year. All this other talk is just circular argument.

    Don't we all know where we stand on this by now? Both sides believe strongly in their opinion, and there's no way to "prove" either side.

    I'm ready to talk about Reggie and the playoffs. There'll be plenty of time for this talk during the offseason...
    That's really true. I think the collective focus of PD should and probably will change to Reggie and the playoffs for the next few weeks.

    Last summer was filled with Brad Miller talk, I'm sure this summer will be filled with Ron Artest talk.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: The Ron Artest Myth

      Can we wait on this discussion until the offseason?

      Or, perhaps, never?

      There's nothing else to say. Nobody's going to change their minds. Let it go already.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: The Ron Artest Myth

        Originally posted by Anthem
        Can we wait on this discussion until the offseason?

        Or, perhaps, never?

        There's nothing else to say. Nobody's going to change their minds. Let it go already.
        You're giving me a migrane. I'll excuse myself from this thread for a few days....

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: The Ron Artest Myth

          Originally posted by Peck
          Actually, if I understand what Hicks is writing, I think you do get it. No one player (minus super superstars) is bigger than TEAM.

          ...except Brad Miller and Dale Davis, of course...

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: The Ron Artest Myth

            Originally posted by Hicks
            It might have been true, but for different reasons. Back then it was "will he stop breaking things, flipping people off, and getting too many flagrants"? And for the most part, he did.

            Then 11/19 happened and opened up a whole new can of worms (more like a barrel of them), and now I think in about 14 months I'll know if he's learned that 1) he has limits that can never be crossed. Ever. and 2) It's do or die time in completely cleaning up his side-show acts or else his career will go in the toilet.

            I predict I will have a good idea of the answers to these questions by next June or so.

            So it's similar to what we were going through before, but it's on a different plane this time. He, for all intents and purposes, passed the test last time, but can he pass this one? 14 months.
            To me, all of this stuff still falls into the same "bucket" - he's constantly doing things to undermine "the team". Different flavors, but the same problem. And presumably the same root cause.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: The Ron Artest Myth

              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
              To me, all of this stuff still falls into the same "bucket" - he's constantly doing things to undermine "the team". Different flavors, but the same problem. And presumably the same root cause.
              True, but some of the "flavors" have already been taken care of, so that leaves me with some hope that the others will be too.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: The Ron Artest Myth

                Originally posted by Anthem
                Can we wait on this discussion until the offseason?

                Or, perhaps, never?

                There's nothing else to say. Nobody's going to change their minds. Let it go already.

                Its like watching a train wreck. I just can't help myself some days.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: The Ron Artest Myth

                  Yeah, let's just get Bonzi!!!

                  Regards,

                  Mourning
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: The Ron Artest Myth

                    Originally posted by Kstat
                    You're giving me a migrane. I'll excuse myself from this thread for a few days....
                    Feel free!
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: The Ron Artest Myth

                      Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                      It actually amazes me how little confidence the pro-Ron crowd actually has in Rick and the front office. I criticize them because they aren't perfect, but I'm generally quite confident in those folks.
                      Let me take that and I am not in the pro Artest crowd...

                      Perhaps it is because these people know that if Ron is sent packing and things do not immediately work with the replacement that management's philosophy (historically) has been to 'wait it out' rather than quickly look to rectify a mistake. It is always possibe trading Artest is the right thing... but the player in return is the wrong player. I'm not necessarily talking in an equal value sense, just possibly in various aspects of the game (chemistry problem, head case, worthless on the court, etc).

                      NOTE: Yes I know you get some of that with Artest BUT there is no argument he CAN play and pull his weight on the court... when he doesn't have a CD to promote.

                      -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


                      • #41
                        Re: The Ron Artest Myth

                        Originally posted by Hicks
                        It might have been true, but for different reasons. Back then it was "will he stop breaking things, flipping people off, and getting too many flagrants"? And for the most part, he did.
                        I must have referred to that differently. I'm pretty sure my thoughts were, "Will he quit all the distracting, stupid, behaviors that detract from the team?"

                        IMO 11/19 was the last straw. Actually, for me the whole "time off to promote my album because I'm tired 5 games into the season" was the last straw but at that point I thought the Pacers had some time before he became a huge negative and could spend some time making a good deal.

                        Guess I was wrong. Anyway, I'm glad he's on your team and not mine because he's used up all the "Get Out of Jail Free" cards I have to give.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: The Ron Artest Myth

                          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                          Guess I was wrong. Anyway, I'm glad he's on your team and not mine because he's used up all the "Get Out of Jail Free" cards I have to give.
                          Oh, Man. You shouldn't have said that.

                          Talk about jinx!
                          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: The Ron Artest Myth

                            I'm sure Walsh and Bird are compiling a list with two columns - "pros" and "cons"

                            Pros - Young, passionate player who is an elite defender at 3 different positions. Unlike Rodman, also posesses scoring ability.

                            Cons - Complete nutjob.

                            They have to decide if the pros outweigh the cons. I think they can, especially since at times Ron seems downright serene. I'm rooting for him, because if he gets his act together, he can be the most complete player in the league. I'd hate to see him do that on another franchise.

                            Trading him would bring a less talented player who also has less baggage. I'm thinking someone like Lamar Odom. That doesn't really do much for me. I'd rather roll the dice with Artest.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: The Ron Artest Myth

                              Originally posted by Los Angeles
                              Oh, Man. You shouldn't have said that.

                              Talk about jinx!
                              Yeah I know - and Isiah'd be the guy to get him.

                              At times I think we're so screwed up it wouldn't matter. Then I look at the small kiddie corps we have who MIGHT turn into players - Butler, Sweetney & Ariza, (and I'm not sure all hope is lost for Crawford either) and think that I don't want them around Ron.

                              I wish he'd get his head on straight because I love how he plays the game - but at some you have to give up the ghost.
                              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: The Ron Artest Myth

                                Originally posted by Hicks
                                Commonly I see his defenders talk about how we won't win a title without him, or that we'll sink to mediocrity if we trade him. What they never seem to admit is that the clock will continue to tick. We might be there for a while, but if you don't think this franchise will move on within 3 years you are crazy. That doesn't mean we will win a title in 3 years if we trade Artest. Just like keeping Ron doesn't mean we will win a title next season. But it astounds me how some people would have you think time will freeze when Ron is gone (if he is) and we'll be in mediocrity for ever and ever and ever.
                                Not to defend those posters you are talking about . . . well yes I guess that's what I'm going to do. When they say we won't win a title or we will sink to mediocrity without Ron, well I don't agree with them, but common sense tells me they don't mean forever.

                                I think the three years you mentioned would be about right if we cut Ron and didn't get anything back for him. Posters suggesting that are sillier than Silly Putty in my estimation though.

                                I think Ron is a top ten player, but for instant if we traded Ron for Odom, (LA Laker's) I don't think the team would miss a beat. Now some of the other trades people purpose to trade Ron for (Bonsi Wells) yes trades like that would set us back.

                                However, like Unclebuck said in another post I have confidence in Pacer management and they will do what is best for the Pacers. If they trade Ron, I'll believe it was for the best. If they keep him, I'll believe it was for the best.

                                Bird was a player on championship teams, he knows what it takes to win championships. He knows whether Ron is to much of a distraction or not and he will act accordingly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X