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

Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

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

  • #16
    Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

    So what was in the longer version that wasn't in the short one?

    It doesn't look like anybody was able to record it...
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

      Originally posted by Anthem
      So what was in the longer version that wasn't in the short one?

      It doesn't look like anybody was able to record it...
      I think they are playing it on Sportscenter... apparently all night...
      They are playing it in two parts and I think it is the whole thing. I think I've heard it 3 times so far (in the background).

      I didn't see the short one so I can't tell you the difference.

      -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


      • #18
        Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

        I don't know what you guys expected from Ron when he was being asked all those stupid degrading questions by a dicksucker like Jim Gray. At least Ron showed a little poise and tried to answer his questions.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

          You know, image aside, it may be in Ron's best interest to not admit to getting counselling. As in, advice from lawyers.

          Until all of the suits have been settled, Ron's lawyers might not want him to say anything that the opposition could use in court. "See, your honor, he was crazy. He even had to undergo counselling to get himself back together. All your salary are belong to us."
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

            There is no evidence Ron is unstable or abnormally aggressive with others outside the gym. There is a good chance that most of this anger management stuff is bullcrap.

            There is only one thing that matters for Artest: Ron needs to control his competitiveness while in an NBA gym.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

              I watched and enjoyed the interview, but like I've said many many times. I don't really pay much attention to what he says

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                You really can't ask much of Ron in this interview:

                a) While I love Ron as a basketball player he is not a very smart person, and I think he gets really self-conscious in interview situations like this. For this reason he has a very hard time expressing himself, and as I said above he's just lacks the ability to be an eloquent player who will impress the media. His vocabulary is lacking and his sentences are really choppy. Ron's Matt Lauer interview after the fight was painful to watch for these reasons.

                b) Jim Gray conducted the interview. This turned me off right from the start. I hope I'm not alone in saying I hate Jim Gray more than Walton at times. Jim Gray is perhaps the biggest jerks/idiots in the sports reporting industry.

                All said and done the most encouraging thing Ron said was that "the cup wasn't a brick". In this little phrase he admitted that he overreacted and turned a minor situation into a melee. If he understand this much than he's come a long way. There is still work to be done, but I can only hope that losing 5 million dollars sobered him up to reality.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                  I also liked the interview. Ron is not a good speaker but I thought he conducted himself well and was very positive, hell, he even wore a suit and tie.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                    It looked like he was wearing a suit - I was impressed!
                    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                      Originally posted by Anthem
                      You know, image aside, it may be in Ron's best interest to not admit to getting counselling. As in, advice from lawyers.

                      Until all of the suits have been settled, Ron's lawyers might not want him to say anything that the opposition could use in court. "See, your honor, he was crazy. He even had to undergo counselling to get himself back together. All your salary are belong to us."
                      I wish people would use spellcheck before they post. It's counseling, not counselling. Aren't you supposed to be a stickler about these things?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                        Originally posted by Burtrem Redneck
                        I don't know what you guys expected from Ron when he was being asked all those stupid degrading questions by a dicksucker like Jim Gray. At least Ron showed a little poise and tried to answer his questions.
                        You have to give Ron credit. If they told me the interview was going to be with Jim Grey I would have told ESPN to go themselves.

                        Yes, I do think Ron could have done a better job with the interview, but some of us don't think well on our feet. He has to be getting some form of help or he's not going to get back into the NBA. I don't have a problem with him not wanting to admit it publicly. The problem is the general public isn't going to take the time to look under the surface where Ron is concerned.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                          One of the best sports moments in the recent past was when Jim Grey tried to embarass Pete Rose on national television during the World Series in one of the first couple of games and in the next game someone on the Yankees showed up for the post-game interview live on national television and then when Grey asked him the first question the response was something like, "Sorry Jim, because of the way you treated Pete Rose, our team has decided not to interview with you this series." As the Yankee walked away (Chad Curtis maybe?), you could hear Jim Grey pleading, "Bu . . . but . . don't you want to talk about the game-winning hit."

                          During the Artest interview, I thought Grey again tried to play his moral superiority out and came across VERY condescending, like he was talking to a 10-year-old child. I'm surprised the Pacers let him do the inteview or they didn't request someone else to interview him.
                          Can we get a new color commentator please?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                            Originally posted by sixthman
                            There is no evidence Ron is unstable or abnormally aggressive with others outside the gym. There is a good chance that most of this anger management stuff is bullcrap. There is only one thing that matters for Artest: Ron needs to control his competitiveness while in an NBA gym.
                            This sums it up for me. I didn't watch because I don't really care much for Ron or his problems, except for the fact that he has hurt his team. I have a lower opinion of Ron than most and I did not see anything in this thread to convince me he's going to be better this fall for an extended period. However, as Larry says, you don't go through this and not come out a better person for it. So I have hope for Ron and wish his team the best.

                            As far as Ron going on Dr. Phil, bring it on! That Phil is so ungodly irritating and self-righteous, it would be a good test for Ron. Personally I would pay money to attend that taping in the hopes that Ron would beat him to a pulp.
                            Don't thank me, I'll kill ya.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                              What's happened to Ron's new PR firm? Is this the best they can do or are they waiting for the playoffs to be over before kicking into gear? Perhaps this interview was their idea of mellowing and placating the media's obsession with the brawl during this series.

                              I don't think Ron owes anyone an apology other than his team and that can be in private. He DOES however need to own up to his involvement and take responsibility. I don't care if he does that publicly or not, but so far he doesn't seem to understand he's not the victim. Until that can be clear in his head, he's not making ANY progress.
                              Don't thank me, I'll kill ya.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                                Originally posted by Knucklehead Warrior
                                This sums it up for me. I didn't watch because I don't really care much for Ron or his problems, except for the fact that he has hurt his team. I have a lower opinion of Ron than most and I did not see anything in this thread to convince me he's going to be better this fall for an extended period. However, as Larry says, you don't go through this and not come out a better person for it. So I have hope for Ron and wish his team the best.

                                As far as Ron going on Dr. Phil, bring it on! That Phil is so ungodly irritating and self-righteous, it would be a good test for Ron. Personally I would pay money to attend that taping in the hopes that Ron would beat him to a pulp.
                                Thanks. It seems to me that most have this Artest situation all wrong.

                                It's Ron competitiveness that gets him in trouble. It has nothing to do with "anger management". Outside the gym he is a laid back guy who regularly chooses to let himself get "used" by friends and family. He does not hang around the locker room threatening fellow players or staff, nor is he a bully, as some would imply. Anger management does not seem to be the issue with Ron; it's the extreme competitiveness inside game situations that is the problem.

                                Ron was taught to treat sport as combat and, unfortunately, he learned the lesson too well. It's in that area Ron has some unlearning to do.

                                To those of you who think Ron is mentally inferior, I'd say at least on a basketball court his IQ is twice yours. True, he is obviously not especially verbal. But so what? Many really smart people can barely carrry on a conversation. Verbosity proves nothing.

                                Given his background, the way Artest has moved upward in society implies to me a good degree of intelligence. There are thousands of 6'7" Americans who never learn to transfer their physical gifts to economic success. Ron is much more than just a big black baller. I don't think there is any doubt, in many areas of intelligence, he is in the 99 percentile.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X