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

Ron Artest not avaliable?

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

  • #31
    Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

    Originally posted by Harmonica
    Regarding the quote, it's just a tactic. Don't take too much stock in what GMs publicly say regarding players and trades. It's like a game of poker to these guys.

    Yes but Bird is not saying it publicly. The newspaper report is that is what Bird is telling GM's privately. You don't see a quote from Bird in there do you

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

      This is an Orlando paper, right? Wonder what the Magic were offering.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
        Dunno - could he have gotten you Vince Carter last season? Probably not since you didn't have any ending contracts to throw in but big-time players have been available each of the last 2 years at the trade deadline.

        Though if the Pacers insist that they receive an absolutely equal on-the-floor player in return for Artest then he'll be here a long time. It'll take 2-3 years before what happened last season can be discounted - and then only if he doesn't have any of his other, smaller meltdowns.
        im sorry, but to suggest vince carter as a viable alternative to artest is a bit humorous to me....after his actions last year that eventually got him traded...i just really dont know how u couldve considered carter as an improvement....i wont get into the basketball side of it-because vince would have a tough time in that argument as well-i think the last time he played defense was in north carolina-and im not talking about charlotte....

        however....for someone to do the things he did to get traded....i have a strong feeling there would be a strong sentiment preferring someone who 'brings it' every nite with emotional issues that can probably be resolved versus someone that will pout and act inappropriately till he gets his way....

        but thats just my opinion...

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

          Originally posted by foretaz

          however....for someone to do the things he did to get traded....
          Add Alonzo to that list as well.
          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

            Originally posted by SoupIsGood
            What other reason would I have for wanting to get rid of him?

            That reason floats just fine. If Ron ever keeps his act clean for half a year, we should consider ourselves lucky, and move him before he destroys his trade value again.

            im curious...does this logic hold true for everyone or just artest.....if bender has a great first half of the year, do u trade him too?

            so bender and artest have a great half of the year...do we trade them both?

            so what we are saying is, 25 year olds cant change, no matter what the issue might be....that, to me, might be a bit presumptuous....

            how u gonna feel if artest is traded, becomes mvp of the league, and look back and u traded him after he had a brush with death, got help, changed his ways and showed evidence of changing his ways?

            how u gonna feel if u saw the signs of greatness in bender for years....but his health because of his size and his youth, simply were the most truest definition of growing pains.....he finally gets healthy, begins to perform and u trade him away....only to be haunted by that fact for years to come....

            it would be one thing if there were no signs of greatness in these guys....its a totally different story when it comes to the patience issue in realizing that greatness....

            remember this...good things come to those who wait....we live in a world that wants instant gratification...let alone a world that wants to sit back and wait....and endure what seems like a neverending cycle of trial and tribulation....

            why go thru all the trial and tribulation and then give our just desserts to someone else and be left to think about how hungry we are and how good that would have tasted?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

              Originally posted by RWB
              Add Alonzo to that list as well.

              u know what....i think alonzo did some inappropriate things....but i also think the things alonzo did get a bit misconstrued....

              vince carter spent years proclaiming his loyalty and love for a franchise and vowed to do this and that....then just suddenly became disenchanted and realized hed made some mistakes and had made a bed he really didnt like....

              alonzo never made these some sort of vows....he made it very clear up front about certain things....and he stuck by those words for the most part, though they wont always be received well....

              alonzo has clearly stated he wanted to compete for a championship and thats all that matters to him....ill give him something for being honest....and sticking by that....noone likes to lose....alonzo's love was never deemed to be unconditional....

              vince's was...he wanted to have a franchise built around him....then he changed his mind...after he had gotten that huge contract-a contract much larger than he couldve gotten anywhere else....

              zo ended up playing for almost next to nothing this year....just to play for the championship....im not saying this makes him a saint....i just dont think he belongs in the same boat with vince...

              ill say this...and many people probably scoff at the notion...but i was wishing like hell we couldve picked zo up....and still am....

              however, i also understand he never will leave miami again...its his home...hes got a chance to compete for the championship and hes gonna stay there....but i think he brings a toughness that is very valuable to a team trying to win...and as a backup i like his ability to defend the post and inspire a team....i think he would be an amazing pickup....almost would be willing to give him the MLE for one year....but it will never happen...even if offered i feel certain he wouldnt take it.....

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

                I can believe that all Alonzo ever wanted was to play for a contender, however, he still took $10 million from the Raptors after refusing to go there. I guess that's how you get punished for not making the playoffs.
                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

                  Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                  Why will Ron be playing for our summer league, anyhow? Isn't that usually for rookies and rookie-contract players?
                  (1)It's possible it's part of his reinstatement package. Prove to us you can play in front of 500 fans without getting into a fight.

                  (2) More likely, it's to ease Ron into those adverse situations and prepare him for the preseason heckling he'll surely get. Ron you owe us some preparation time and this is it.

                  (3) If he's going to be a problem, let's find out sooner, rather than later.
                  Don't thank me, I'll kill ya.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

                    Originally posted by RWB
                    I can believe that all Alonzo ever wanted was to play for a contender, however, he still took $10 million from the Raptors after refusing to go there. I guess that's how you get punished for not making the playoffs.

                    rwb....i think u might be mistaken on this...alonzo took a huge financial hit to go to miami....he made a huge financial concession regarding the buyout of his contract to go to miami.....the raptors played hardball, cause they knew they could...and alonzo eventually caved....i just read this somewhere within the last 3 weeks....in fact it went something like this....after much negotiation, alonzo just told his agent to do whatever the raptors wanted...at that point he didnt care about the money...i wish i could give u a link...but i read alot of stuff...sorry...though i really have no reason to make it up...for what its worth...

                    and to be honest...i think it goes even more to the new jersey thing....i dont blame jason kidd and alonzo for being totally pi$$ed....they both made it very clear why they went to new jersey....and the new ownership is now on record as saying they made a huge mistake last offseason...which to me only gives validation to what jason and alonzo were feeling...and i personally think jason feels even worse because he talked zo into coming to jersey, though zo went on his accord for his own somewhat selfish reasons-to win a title

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

                      Originally posted by foretaz

                      im curious...does this logic hold true for everyone or just artest.....if bender has a great first half of the year, do u trade him too?



                      This comparison is absurd. Bender's problem is his health, Artest's is his demeanor. It's two completely unrelated situations, and you know that.


                      Yes, that logic applies only to Artest. As far as I know, he is the only player on the team that is such a disruption. If we ever bring in a player with similar issues, I would also want him traded.


                      Originally posted by foretaz
                      so bender and artest have a great half of the year...do we trade them both?

                      so what we are saying is, 25 year olds cant change, no matter what the issue might be....that, to me, might be a bit presumptuous....

                      how u gonna feel if artest is traded, becomes mvp of the league, and look back and u traded him after he had a brush with death, got help, changed his ways and showed evidence of changing his ways?





                      No, what is presumptuous is placing words in my mouth. If we are going to have a friendly debate, please stop assuming you know what I think, especially when it's something as stupid a "25 year olds can't change."

                      Brush with death? Hardly. Artest screwed up, and was punished. If he brushed up against anything, it was suicide. You talk of Ron as if he were some sort of perverted martyr.



                      Originally posted by foretaz
                      how u gonna feel if u saw the signs of greatness in bender for years....but his health because of his size and his youth, simply were the most truest definition of growing pains.....he finally gets healthy, begins to perform and u trade him away....only to be haunted by that fact for years to come....

                      it would be one thing if there were no signs of greatness in these guys....its a totally different story when it comes to the patience issue in realizing that greatness....

                      remember this...good things come to those who wait....we live in a world that wants instant gratification...let alone a world that wants to sit back and wait....and endure what seems like a neverending cycle of trial and tribulation....

                      why go thru all the trial and tribulation and then give our just desserts to someone else and be left to think about how hungry we are and how good that would have tasted?
                      Foretaz, I know full well what it means to be patient, so save me the lecture.

                      As for Ron, I think we have been more than patient with him. At some point, you have to start looking to trade him (last offseason).
                      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

                        Consider Artest as half of a player and you have no problem... His salary is half of what he probably deserves (considering only skill)
                        Here, everyone have a : on me

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

                          Originally posted by foretaz

                          why go thru all the trial and tribulation and then give our just desserts to someone else and be left to think about how hungry we are and how good that would have tasted?
                          That would be unacceptable to me, crushing in fact.

                          You've heard the saying, "You're in good hands with All State?" Well, the Pacers are in good hands with Bird and Walsh. They both know what they are doing. I'll give up on Bender and Artest when they do, and not until.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck
                            I think what this likely means is that Bird will not just dump Artest.

                            Agree


                            If someone wants him they'll have to give equal value.
                            IMHO... inconclusive. Not enough info is available to agree with you here. It simply means if someone wants Artest they will have to give up more than what is regularly being offered. That doesn't mean 'equal' value per se', just something better than the existing offers (assuming there even is any).

                            I'm not convinced the Pacers wouldn'tt trade Artest for less than equal value, but at this point I doubt they'd just give him away.

                            -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


                            • #44
                              Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

                              Told yaaaaaaaaaaaa!
                              Ron is our key to winning! I LOVE RONNIE!
                              Him+JO+JACK+A Polished JJ...
                              OMG...That's heart attack material there.
                              JJ=Our new Reggie.
                              "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Ron Artest not avaliable?

                                Originally posted by Harmonica
                                Oh-oh, here we go again.
                                Are we there yet?

                                -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