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

  • Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

    I wanted to come away from it saying "Maybe, just maybe he's going to be different'...

    Something just didn't feel right to me. You'd listen for his answer and he just wouldn't go where you'd think he would... or should. Maybe not exactly like Michael Jackson being interviewed but you get the idea. There were better answers than what he was giving.

    Also, Artest said he has NOT been attending counseling. I find that hard to believe and if true then I can understand Stern not reinstating him early. That is just something that should be a given in a circumstance like this. If nothing else so that he can see what other people are seeing and hopefully come to terms with it.

    I wanted to be impressed with him and what he's done and learned. I wanted to think "He's getting it"...

    Now I am not so sure.

    -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

  • #2
    Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

    I wasn't sold, either. I WANTED to be so bad. But he didn't do it tonight.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

      I only saw the edited version, but it looked pretty decent.

      What was in the longer version that bothered you?
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

        Well, one thing is for sure. Ron has come a long way from "Now I wanna promote by CD" Ron, and blabbering-to-ESPN-from-his-car Ron. He was a pretty good interview.

        I get the feeling Ron was speaking in honesty in what he said, because a lot of the things he said weren't exactly what someone looking for a PR bump would say.

        However, he either hasn't had counseling, or didn't want to admit it. Like I said above, I think he is telling the truth, and hasn't undergone therapy. He clearly thinks he can conquer his demons by himself. Which, considering how hard he has worked to become the player he is, isn't exactly a stretch.

        He made a good point in saying that the time he has had off has been like three NBA summers, and has left him a lot of time to progress as a person, or player maybe, he only said 'improve'.

        He kept vaguely stating that he was improving, and would continue to improve. While the idea of his on-court game becoming even better is exciting, I wish he would of explained how he had been/is planning on 'improving' the explosions of anger that have threatened his career.

        The fact that he was so vague worries me. I think Gray should have followed up on this in the interview, "What exactly have you been doing about your anger problems?" would have been nice. Ron kept dancing with 'improvement'. While it sounds great, I wish he would have been less ambiguous.
        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

          Well, at least it wasn't like the Bob Knight interview with Jeremy Schapp where Knight did himself no favors (even insulted Jeremy by saying he wasn't as good as his dad (or something like that)). IMHO Knight came off as an 'a$$'.

          IMHO... Thankfully, it's not something that will haunt the Pacers or serve as distraction for these playoffs.

          But I don't see it changing any minds or calming any worries either. Maybe someone else who saw it will have a different take. I doubt DW or Larry B were overly thrilled with it... unless it just thrilled them he didn't create a distraction with it. I doubt he said what they hoped he would say.

          -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


          • #6
            Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

            With Ron, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Pacers got him into something that wasn't called "counselling." Ron's enough of a hard-*** that I could see him balking at it. But he's definitely been in some kind of program, and the Pacers (and even the NBA) say he's done everything they've asked him to do. If it's not in an office, does it count as counselling?

            I could also see Ron getting counselling but not wanting to admit it on national TV.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

              Originally posted by Anthem
              I only saw the edited version, but it looked pretty decent.

              What was in the longer version that bothered you?
              His thought process just didn't seem to connect all the dots. I hesitate to call some of the answers 'rambling' but they certainly could've been more direct. And I didn't hear answers that you'd think would be the obvious politically correct answers. His answers went places that made me uneasy at times.

              To hear him say he is not undergoing counseling (and imply he has not during this period) worries me in and of itself. Even if he is and just doesn't want to admit it, that implies to me that more counseling could be needed. It's not like he's Tony Soprano and needs to keep it under wraps. He needs to let the world know he's willing to leave no stone unturned to get his NBA career back on track.

              I would've liked to have heard a heartfelt apology to the fans of the Pacers, the team, and the NBA... But maybe that is expecting too much...

              Did I hear him tell people he's forgiven them?

              -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


              • #8
                Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                I wouldn't fault Ron for not wanting to admit he had counseling on National TV.

                That's pretty personal, IMO.
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                  Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                  I wouldn't fault Ron for not wanting to admit he had counseling on National TV.

                  That's pretty personal, IMO.
                  I would think if counseling is getting thru to him that he'd be comfortable with talking about it by now. Plus, he has to know that it would be a positive for his tarnished image to be involved in counseling at this point.

                  You could be right tho... That crossed my mind as well.

                  -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


                  • #10
                    Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                    I must say... He doesn't seem like he's going to be a wearing a "Stuck Fern" T-shirt. He says he loves David Stern (no, he wasn't being sarcastic). He says Stern shook his hand AND gave him a hug. He called him a 'dad' to the NBA and said sometimes he (Stern) has to discipline his children.

                    -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


                    • #11
                      Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                      Originally posted by Bball
                      Did I hear him tell people he's forgiven them?
                      Kinda. I took that as referring to Ben Wallace. They were talking about Ben's foul, then "I forgive... people... for what they did to me. I'm not mad about it."

                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                        I saw nothing wrong with it, I was impressed with how he presented himself, and I feel good about it.
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                          Ron seems to be in a different world than the rest of us. He comes from the projects of NY city where you can never show weakness. Admitting to counseling is liking admitting a weakness. Do you think we could get him on Dr Phil for a little psycho-analyzing. I would say RA could toy with Dr Phils mind.
                          "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                          Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                            Oh c'mon, Bball, counseling is overrated. That is not the magic bullet for Ron. It needs to start with him. And whether it was a PR front or not, I certainly got that impression from the interview. And you know how I feel about Ron!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Thoughts on the Ron Artest Interview

                              Originally posted by Harmonica
                              Oh c'mon, Bball, counseling is overrated. That is not the magic bullet for Ron. It needs to start with him. And whether it was a PR front or not, I certainly got that impression from the interview. And you know how I feel about Ron!
                              I think you missed my point... My point isn't about the validity of counseling, it is about whether Ron is doing everything he can to get past this. Counseling just seems like one of the steps he'd want to try (or should try). Even if he thinks it won't do him any good, it would certainly serve PR purposes. And he is a person who has a lot of rehab work to do on a lot of fronts and could use whatever good PR he can get. I'm not sure the NBA or the Pacers want to see him taking any shortcuts or skipping any steps. I'd think they would want him to leave no stone unturned. And, in his current position, he should want that as well.

                              -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

                              Working...
                              X