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

An answer for Fortaz......

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

  • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

    Originally posted by SoupIsGood
    you! I was waiting to do that, but got caught up reading some of the purple!
    If you read only Peck's responses, you get the gist of what is said in the purple.

    Comment


    • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

      Originally posted by Peck
      You know what, I actually agree on that.

      Hell for once I don't even blame for this. At the time I'm sure they had no idea how bad it would get so they tried to get something in return.

      As to how serious? It wasn't that serious but not because of us. West did not want any part of Artest. I think they started out talking about Swift but then dropped down to Miller. But either way Jerry wasn't budging.
      Actually they had their eye on Bonzi. But the talks never really got that serious, as far as I know. The talks that got down to brass tacks were with Sacramento and Orlando.

      Comment


      • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

        Peck,

        did u happen to see my post where i addressed the austin issue? cause someone asked the exact same question u did...and i addressed it...if not here it is..
        http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...&postcount=285

        Comment


        • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

          Originally posted by Peck
          At the time I'm sure they had no idea how bad it would get so they tried to get something in return.
          By the way, this is pretty much the whole argument in a nutshell and certainly addresses this:

          "bottom line is, the people that matter are able to take a much more in depth look than u and i and have many more facts available than u and i...do u not trust their judgement?"

          We know what the judges ruled last summer before "the incident." Ron needed to go.

          Comment


          • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

            Originally posted by foretaz
            Peck,

            did u happen to see my post where i addressed the austin issue? cause someone asked the exact same question u did...and i addressed it...
            Yea, sorry about that. I didn't read other posts till after ours.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

              [QUOTE=Peck]
              Originally posted by foretaz

              I swear I thought your last line was going to be that this makes him just like Jordan. Thank God you didn't say that because I think I would have had to jump off the bank one building if you did.

              Only 25..... I know people who make life & death decisions every single day that are younger than 25.

              Ok, I've admitted that Ron is a great ball player but I think my thoughts on him being a great ball player are differant than yours. I mean I think he is good, way above average. I think you think he is a special player or am I misunderstanding you?
              i think we could probably go back and forth on alot of things forever...which im sure neither one of us have any desire to do....i will reiterate my desire for everyone, not just u, to hold the all the players to similar standards....and i do believe that ur mindset appears to be one that will only allow ron to fail...he will always be further than perfect than others....

              i thought i might address this question since u did ask it....

              i think at times, hes a special player....and i think he has the potential to be a very special player....but i also believe that for him to do that...no matter where hes at....he has to exorcise the demons that haunt him....he has to resolve these emotional issues....he must get his mind right...because for him to be a very special player, his mental game needs to be as good as his physical game.....he is gifted physically....and hes gifted mentally-and i say that because hes able to play with an intensity level that appears to me to be much higher than most....there only appears to be one thing holding him back....

              and as long as it does, he will continue to have the inconsistencies hes had from a mental standpoint on the court....and he will continue to have interpersonal problems with his teammates and coaches that prevent his team from being as cohesive a unit as it could be.... and he will continue to be a very good basketball player who seems to be on a collision course, with what, is anybodys guess....but he will never even sniff his potential....

              but,to be honest....if he doesnt get these issues resolved, hes got bigger problems than basketball....and because i kinda like the guy, that concerns me....life is more than basketball...and just as his issues haunt his basketball game, they will continue to haunt his life...but its been proven that these sorts of things can be dealt with very effectively....

              and that excites me, as a pacer fan....but also as an artest fan....i want things to work out for the kid....whether its here or anywhere else....id hate to see such a talent go to waste....but more than that, id hate to see what seems to be a quality human being go to waste....

              Comment


              • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                At this point, barring some decent trade that approaches equal value for Artest or really scores a need for the Pacers, I think we should be simply making sure our backup plan (person) is in place in case Ron decides to retire, fight the whole team, get suspened, get banned, or whatever else is now not outside of the realm of possibilities with him.

                I'm of the opinion a vet minimum (or just slightly better) type player is all the quality we could hope for in a trade of Artest (now) anyway (Obviously we'd be getting more $$$ wrapped up in the trade due to salary and maybe there'd be some useless filler we'd have to deal with)... So why not just have our cake and eat it too? Keep Artest, tighten the leash, and make sure we have a player of the quality we'd have taken in trade anyway. That way we have Artest in case he has learned something and reshaped his life, and we have a replacement option of roughly the same value as what we would have gotten in an Artest trade anyway.

                I'm not adverse to that player being JJ. That's not saying that JJ is as good as Artest, that is saying I fear JJ is as good as we could hope for in a trade of Artest anyway.

                So IMO, it is about the bench where we need to think about Artest (players backing him up). ....Unless someone has some way to actually get an (close to) equal quality player in trade out of someone.

                -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


                • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                  Originally posted by foretaz
                  but i also believe that for him to do that...no matter where hes at....he has to exercise the demons that haunt him
                  OK, I don't normally rag on spelling/grammar, but it's just too funny a miswording here

                  I think we don't want Ron to exercise his demons any more than he already has - they're probably healthy enough. We probably want him to exorcise them.

                  Just funnin ya
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment


                  • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                    Originally posted by Harmonica
                    By the way, this is pretty much the whole argument in a nutshell and certainly addresses this:

                    "bottom line is, the people that matter are able to take a much more in depth look than u and i and have many more facts available than u and i...do u not trust their judgement?"

                    We know what the judges ruled last summer before "the incident." Ron needed to go.
                    this sounds good to those that want to believe it....but there are facts that positively contradict this 'purported information'

                    most notably....

                    if u have a guy that u supposedly are so desperate to get rid of....who u feel will never be anything but a hindrance to ur team and its goals....and a guy who at the time, as has clearly been mentioned, didnt have the fan support that he has now due to the martyrdom....a guy, as u say that was deemed to be a guy that "needed to go" by those that were closest to that situation as is purported....

                    then if he wants to go....why not let him???? he wanted to take time off....he didnt want to play basketball anymore....he wanted to retire.....

                    well if ur wanting to get rid of him...if u feel ur team is better off without him....if ur so desperate to have him gone....WHY NOT LET HIM THE HELL GO????

                    just be done with him...thats what u want, right?....'He Needs To Go'...

                    but instead of this....they try to reason and appeal to ron....they obviously give no consideration to letting him go and every effort is made to prevent this time off and convince him that this sort of thing is not in the best interest of the team...they do everything within their power to prevent his departure.....this screams of realizing that they are much better off WITH him than without him....this contradicts the notion that they would like to see him gone...anything but....

                    it says despite this poor act of behavior that is indeed disruptive and unacceptable, they want him on the team, they feel they need him on the team and have to figure a way to eliminate the distractions....they felt that whatever effort was required in trying to deal with rons problems, that the end result was worth it

                    if i want someone gone....and they give me a golden opportunity....i take it....and dont look back...

                    so before u buy into some of this nonsense, remember one thing...actions speak far louder than words.....there is posturing....and there are actions that are directly related to a certain course of action which points to what the real mindset of a team is....

                    the pacers had their chance to get rid of him....with rons behavior and the leagues supposed disposition towards him combined with the simons relationship with the commissioners office , the pacers couldve come to some sort of settlement with regards to rons contract and the league wouldve almost certainly been very generous with allowances regarding the salary cap....the pacers had their chance....and u can be upset at the choice they made....but dont blame ron.....

                    the pacers had their chance....and they obviously feel much different than is 'purported' or that some of u believe.....or the results wouldve been far different....

                    Comment


                    • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                      Originally posted by BillS
                      OK, I don't normally rag on spelling/grammar, but it's just too funny a miswording here

                      I think we don't want Ron to exercise his demons any more than he already has - they're probably healthy enough. We probably want him to exorcise them.

                      Just funnin ya
                      lol...yea..ur right...rather ironic huh? it feels like ive typed ten billion words the last day or two....its a wonder im even able to come up with something that is legible at all....though there might be some that say i cant...

                      thank god for the edit feature

                      Comment


                      • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                        Originally posted by foretaz
                        this sounds good to those that want to believe it....but there are facts that positively contradict this 'purported information'

                        most notably....

                        if u have a guy that u supposedly are so desperate to get rid of....who u feel will never be anything but a hindrance to ur team and its goals....and a guy who at the time, as has clearly been mentioned, didnt have the fan support that he has now due to the martyrdom....a guy, as u say that was deemed to be a guy that "needed to go" by those that were closest to that situation as is purported....

                        then if he wants to go....why not let him???? he wanted to take time off....he didnt want to play basketball anymore....he wanted to retire.....

                        well if ur wanting to get rid of him...if u feel ur team is better off without him....if ur so desperate to have him gone....WHY NOT LET HIM THE HELL GO????

                        just be done with him...thats what u want, right?....'He Needs To Go'...

                        but instead of this....they try to reason and appeal to ron....they obviously give no consideration to letting him go and every effort is made to prevent this time off and convince him that this sort of thing is not in the best interest of the team...they do everything within their power to prevent his departure.....this screams of realizing that they are much better off WITH him than without him....this contradicts the notion that they would like to see him gone...anything but....

                        it says despite this poor act of behavior that is indeed disruptive and unacceptable, they want him on the team, they feel they need him on the team and have to figure a way to eliminate the distractions....they felt that whatever effort was required in trying to deal with rons problems, that the end result was worth it

                        if i want someone gone....and they give me a golden opportunity....i take it....and dont look back...

                        so before u buy into some of this nonsense, remember one thing...actions speak far louder than words.....there is posturing....and there are actions that are directly related to a certain course of action which points to what the real mindset of a team is....

                        the pacers had their chance to get rid of him....with rons behavior and the leagues supposed disposition towards him combined with the simons relationship with the commissioners office , the pacers couldve come to some sort of settlement with regards to rons contract and the league wouldve almost certainly been very generous with allowances regarding the salary cap....the pacers had their chance....and u can be upset at the choice they made....but dont blame ron.....

                        the pacers had their chance....and they obviously feel much different than is 'purported' or that some of u believe.....or the results wouldve been far different....
                        This just is not true.

                        Nobody said the team just wanted to cast him away, they wanted something in return for him. As the summer went on they lowered their expectations as to what they could get for him but they did try & move him.

                        Look, I absolutely understand anyone not wanting to listen to people who try & tell you "Oh I know" on the internet because for all you know they could be totally making it up. But don't take our words for it. Just do a google search & you can see for yourself that the Bucks, the Griz & the Kings all state in public that the Pacers offered Ron Artest up in trades. Each of these links are online & if I get a chance later I will try & find them for you. The Pacers themselves made it known they used Ron as bait to get T-Mac.

                        So in these cases it's not just something "we want to beleive", but is actual reported scenarios with quotes by management of other teams.

                        But let's just say that harmonica has his sources & I've always found them to be reliable so if he says that the team looked to move X player for Z player then I believe him.

                        However, if you don't want to I understand.


                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                          Originally posted by Peck
                          This just is not true.

                          Nobody said the team just wanted to cast him away, they wanted something in return for him. As the summer went on they lowered their expectations as to what they could get for him but they did try & move him.

                          Look, I absolutely understand anyone not wanting to listen to people who try & tell you "Oh I know" on the internet because for all you know they could be totally making it up. But don't take our words for it. Just do a google search & you can see for yourself that the Bucks, the Griz & the Kings all state in public that the Pacers offered Ron Artest up in trades. Each of these links are online & if I get a chance later I will try & find them for you. The Pacers themselves made it known they used Ron as bait to get T-Mac.

                          So in these cases it's not just something "we want to beleive", but is actual reported scenarios with quotes by management of other teams.

                          But let's just say that harmonica has his sources & I've always found them to be reliable so if he says that the team looked to move X player for Z player then I believe him.

                          However, if you don't want to I understand.
                          when did i ever say they didnt try to trade him????

                          look...im very clear about something....i never deny facts...people trying to deliberately distort those facts to substantiate something theyd like to believe is something im a little leary of....

                          as ive said often, now....i always ask why someone would do what they do....

                          maybe ur just so used to automatically defending the antiron stance that ur inclined to do the same with me....

                          but i assure u, and it should be a little more clear now....i dont think i share some of the views that the so called apologists do....i dont think uve heard me apologize or condone anything hes done....

                          and while trying to trade ron for tracy mcgrady might be something u try to construe as the pacers wanting him gone....thats a very, very biased viewpoint.....

                          if they dangle jo for garnett, does that mean they want jo gone???

                          this is a business....and anyone that knows much of anything about business clearly knows that such stupid sayings as they "want him gone" never are uttered by successful businessman....and to think donnie, larry or the simons would utter such things let alone think such thinks only discredits those that are saying such things....successful businesses dont work that way....

                          with regards to the tmac trade....tmac is arguably the only 3 that realistically would be an equal to ron in the league....not my words-urs....and im of a very similar opinion....

                          if u have ur two superstars at odds(jo and artest) and at the same time tmac is very disgruntled and is definitely going to leave it only makes sense to broach that subject.....its smart...its good business....it hardly means they want him gone....noone is untouchable....this is business....as larry has clearly pointed out again this year...everyone is dispensable....if u can make a move that would seem to better the team u do it....as ive said regarding jo....i would trade him for duncan or garnett....aint gonna happen....and i love jo....but would do either one of those in a heartbeat....doesnt mean i want him gone....i mean cmon...

                          there are other very definitive points i could make regarding things that blatantly point to them not 'wanting him gone'....but im not sure we want to go there...not sure what the point is....some people are going to say stupid things on the internet...and others are going to believe them.....some will find that logic and facts dont support said stupid remarks and take them for what they are....

                          Comment


                          • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                            Originally posted by foretaz
                            this is a business....and anyone that knows much of anything about business clearly knows that such stupid sayings as they "want him gone" never are uttered by successful businessman....and to think donnie, larry or the simons would utter such things let alone think such thinks only discredits those that are saying such things....successful businesses dont work that way....
                            You're joking, right? They may never publicly say such things, but they are discussed privately among each other, family members, etc. One thing you might want to keep in mind, and you might find this hard to believe, but these guys are human, too. I'm curious as to what you think are some other things these guys might not say or think. I will give you this, successful businessmen are adept at separating personal and emotional feelings from business decisions. But even then, I know that they too creep into their decisions from time to time. It's unavoidable. Again, because they're human.


                            EDIT: Let me add, I think you're splitting hairs with what words are chosen to describe management's mindset last summer: "Want him gone" "Needs to go" etc. I just know that after last year's ECFs they were anxious to trade him for myriad reasons. His meltdown on and (mostly) off the court in that series prompted management to become more proactive in seeking out a suitable and equitable trade. Interpret that as you wish.

                            Comment


                            • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                              Correct, Harmonica.

                              More importantly, every good manager continually performs a "risk analysis" when important decisions must be made.

                              In other words, how good will this team be without Artest? If we trade him, will we have lost our window of opportunity at a championship? If we don't trade him, will it affect our attendance figures?

                              But I think you guys are mistaken if you think there was any panic on the part of the Pacers, or even in thinking that they may have reached a collective decision of "we want Artest gone". Not during last summer, anyway.

                              Comment


                              • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                                Originally posted by beast23
                                Correct, Harmonica.

                                More importantly, every good manager continually performs a "risk analysis" when important decisions must be made.

                                In other words, how good will this team be without Artest? If we trade him, will we have lost our window of opportunity at a championship? If we don't trade him, will it affect our attendance figures?

                                But I think you guys are mistaken if you think there was any panic on the part of the Pacers, or even in thinking that they may have reached a collective decision of "we want Artest gone". Not during last summer, anyway.

                                exactly....some here would have u believe that the pacers front office suffers from the same afflictions as ron artest and are prone to the same misguided knee jerk reactions that ron and a lot of fans are....

                                uhhh....dont think so...donnie walsh has an unbelievably long history of rendering unemotional, agonizingly methodical and painstakingly thought out decisions....

                                the implications of some on here are laughable....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X