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

Paul Pierce

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

  • #61
    Re: Paul Pierce

    Originally posted by Jay@Section204
    Leopards can't change thier spots.
    I hate that saying.

    Yes, a leopard cannot change it's phenotype. Only through selective breeding, can a leopard's physical attributes be changed.

    Ron Artest's problem is not his physical characteristics; it is his behavior.

    The analogy does not work.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Paul Pierce

      I'll take Pierce........for a second rounder.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Paul Pierce

        Originally posted by SycamoreKen
        I'll echo Hicks here. My only reasons for dealing Artest is what goes on between his ears.

        Agreed, and with Jay too.

        I'd love to see Ron succeed here. But as I've said before, the 19th proved that with Ron, no lead is so big and no game is so secure that you can be sure of how he will react to anything. I promise you he will not go into the stands again but, you never know what he will do. His teamates will ALWAYS have to look over their shoulders or watching him out of the corner of their eye. And rightly or wrongly, everytime he sits on the bench and slyly gives the crowd the finger it will be magnified 100 fold by the media. Every move he makes will be photgraphed and scrutinized microscopically. But that not only affects him, it affects his teamates. Do they want to live with this? How much distraction will it create for the team? Do you want the focus of this team to be his every action, or the winning of games? BTW, this won't go away after just a few games or months...like British royalty, from here on he will have the paparizzi following his every move.
        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Paul Pierce

          For you Ron Artest supporters, is there anyone you would trade this guy for?

          Is it only KG, Duncan? Would you even trade him for Shaq, Lebron, or Wade?

          If this is the type of player you think that he is, with the mental baggage and all, did we not way overpay JO? Should we not look to trade JO and build around Artest. These two do not work together. It has been well documented that Artest and JO have had many fights behind the scenes. And Artest's complaint last year was that he didn't like the throw it into JO offense.

          Does this team need to do nothing? Are you content to stay the same over the summer?
          House Name: Pacers

          House Sigil:



          House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Paul Pierce

            Where's this (apparent) myth that Boston would demand Tinsley coming from? Aside from just because you might think they would?

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Paul Pierce

              Originally posted by Hicks
              Where's this (apparent) myth that Boston would demand Tinsley coming from? Aside from just because you might think they would?
              Especially considering they already have Delonte West and Marcus Banks to follow Gary Payton.
              House Name: Pacers

              House Sigil:



              House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Paul Pierce

                Originally posted by Diamond Dave
                For you Ron Artest supporters, is there anyone you would trade this guy for?

                Is it only KG, Duncan? Would you even trade him for Shaq, Lebron, or Wade?
                DD, I said I was gonna be done with this discussion, but you're bringing up all the old stupid arguments again and I can't stay out.

                Yes, I would trade Ron for all of those guys. Everybody here would. Yes, I was in favor of trading Ron for TMac. No, I don't (in general) like the trade of Ron for Peja, but I know Bird's always been crazy about Peja and would be ok with it. Odom goes on that list as well. James Posey does not. Bonzi Wells does not. A second-round pick does not. An expiring contract does not.

                Try to understand the issues here. I'm so freaking sick if this line of questioning. A leopard can change his stripes... look at Rasheed Wallace. 11/19 didn't "prove" anything about how Ron will act in the future. If he comes back and isn't a changed man, then I'll be fine with moving him. And if Bird/Donnie/Carlisle say he needs to go, then I won't second-guess them. But you're refusing to believe the coach, GM, president, and teammates just to fit your own opinions.

                Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Paul Pierce

                  And for the record....

                  Until somebody shows me otherwise, I don't believe we tried to trade Artest for Pierce. I don't believe we tried to trade him for Walker (I believe Artest was the target and Walker the bait, and we wisely said no). I don't believe West refused to move Bonzi for Ron (he had complimentary things to say about Ron a few weeks after, and so I've always viewed it as an attempt to bargain). I believe we tried to move Artest for Redd (back when we still had harrington). I believe we tried to move Ron for Peja.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Paul Pierce

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section222
                    There's no reasonable, rational reason to believe Ron will be any different in the future than he has been in the recent and not-so-recent past.
                    The reasonable, and rational reason to believe Ron will change is because he just served a season-long suspension, losing millions of dollars, and being withheld from playing the game he loves.

                    I want to see what this experience has taught him; he has most likely gained so much more respect for the game (which he has been quoted as saying). And all I know is that line-up we played before 11/19 was something of beauty that I need to see again. Let's not forget the scoreboard on 11/19.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Paul Pierce

                      Originally posted by rcarey
                      The reasonable, and rational reason to believe Ron will change is because he just served a season-long suspension, losing millions of dollars, and being withheld from playing the game he loves.

                      I want to see what this experience has taught him; he has most likely gained so much more respect for the game (which he has been quoted as saying). And all I know is that line-up we played before 11/19 was something of beauty that I need to see again. Let's not forget the scoreboard on 11/19.

                      He's been punished repeatedly in the past. I just don't see how a longer punishment - related to an on-court incident - is really going to make a difference to his off-court disruptions. Why do I feel like I'm the only one that remembers that he quit on the team/ got in a fight with our annointed franchise player just a week before the brawl? I don't care if he never does anything suspendable on-the-court ever again, I'm concenred about the behind-the-scenes crap and I don't think you can connect the dots between this punishment (for which he told GQ he didn't really do anything wrong) and the off-court crap.

                      People keep referring to this comment, "one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over-and-over while expecting different results." Its crazy to expect that he'll finally change his disruptive behavior *this time*. Maybe he will change - anything's possible no matter how remote the odds, but its crazy to expect it.

                      As I've said before, I think his best chance - albeit remote - of changing will come from a change-of-scenery, not the severity of this particular punishment. He frankly deserves a fresh start -especially in arenas outside of Indianapolis - that he won't get with the Pacers.

                      I'm not saying he's not learning anything from this experience, but what he's probably learned is, "I'm one step away from permanent expulsion", so its likely that his logical response is to not play 'so close to the edge'. It may take him a long time to figure out how to balance his characteristic high levels of effort with the reality that he must keep himself under control.
                      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


                      • #71
                        Re: Paul Pierce

                        One thing in the Artest situation is which way the team wants to hedge their bets on Artest. Do they want to hang onto him at almost all costs (except getting an All Star in a trade) or do they so worry enough about another 'episode' that they believe to not trade for the best deal possible would bite them later if an episode would happen and his trade value plummet below zero.

                        Obviously they can't come out and SAY option 2 is where they are setting up camp.

                        BTW... I agree with the premise if this situation hasn't gotten thru to him than nothing will... but you still can't be worry free. And I'm sure every GM in the league feels the same way. One more 'episode' and he'll be absolute poison... if he's not already.

                        Would a banning from the NBA relieve the Pacers contractually?

                        -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


                        • #72
                          Re: Paul Pierce

                          Originally posted by Bball
                          Would a banning from the NBA relieve the Pacers contractually?

                          -BBall

                          Even if the answer is 'yes' (and I think it is), I don't believe that really helps the Pacers in terms of a replacement because they're still way over the cap.
                          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


                          • #73
                            Re: Paul Pierce

                            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                            Even if the answer is 'yes' (and I think it is), I don't believe that really helps the Pacers in terms of a replacement because they're still way over the cap.
                            Well then they would just appeal to the NBA to.... uhhhhh nevermind...


                            -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


                            • #74
                              Re: Paul Pierce

                              Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                              I think those willing to deal Ron are usually those willing to suffer a year or two's setback, to later have a chance at not only greatness, but long-term, stable greatness.
                              Are you planning on Bender coming back or something? He has zero trade value, so what do you think you're going to get for him? This team is always injury prone, so I doubt that's going to change. It would be this exact team with maybe a same caliber backup pg, or some variation of DD.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Paul Pierce

                                We could easily get something good for Artest. I would take someone like Corey Magette or Quentin Richardson for Artest. Sure these guys aren't in the same level as Artest, but they would help out our team.

                                The Kings traded Webber for 3 PF's. We don't really need to get equal falue out of Artest. You just want what's gonna help this team all around. I'd be contempt with trading Artest for 1 pretty good player and 1/2 decent players.

                                With Miller retiring, we have our 3 main scoring options set, S-Jax, JO, and Artest. Half the time though they all want to be the first option. A couple more role players would help out, and possible make our bench even stronger.
                                AKA Sactolover05

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X