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

If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

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

  • #31
    Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

    Originally posted by Peck
    I'm not trying to be a smart *** about this but I have to ask.

    How do you force people to get along? Wouldn't it take a mutual agreement by them to get along?

    How do you force it???
    I don't know, but if somebody figures it out, can we use it on foretaz and Kstat?

    Probably not, since the root of their respective problems are different. I don't see any sexual tension between JO and Ronnie.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

      JO Was gonna go into the stands for ron 2 but was held back. They still go to war for each other...so who cares?
      "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

        Originally posted by Unclebuck
        Really the botton line is that if either are traded for a player other than a top 15 player then it will be a bad trade. I would argue it needs to be a top 10 player.

        Someone name for me the last good trade involving a top 10 player or even a top 15 player.

        The Lakers killed their franchise when they traded Shaq.

        When the Suns traded Kidd it took them what 4 years to recover and only then when they got lucky and acquired Nash.

        The fact of the matter is very few top 10 players are ever traded. I realize we can argue about who is top 10 or 15 and who isn't. But if a team has one of those top 10 players I don't think they ever should be traded unless you get another top 10 player in return.

        Besides Shaq and Kidd none of the others have been traded.
        You know I like Ron, and I don't want to start a "trade Ron for a box of kleenex" ruckus, but I don't think trading Ron would kill us. Trading JO would, but I think we'd get by without Ron.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

          Originally posted by Kegboy
          You know I like Ron, and I don't want to start a "trade Ron for a box of kleenex" ruckus, but I don't think trading Ron would kill us. Trading JO would, but I think we'd get by without Ron.

          May not kill us but there is not a championship in our future. It would take two or three years to re-tool.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

            Originally posted by Kegboy
            You know I like Ron, and I don't want to start a "trade Ron for a box of kleenex" ruckus, but I don't think trading Ron would kill us. Trading JO would, but I think we'd get by without Ron.
            if 'getting by' was all that was desired, then im sure i would agree...given the goal is winning a title, i dont believe trading ron and what we would get in return would enable us to do that....

            and i would probably have some doubts regarding being able to win a title trading jo as well....

            thats why i say, to win the title, ur gonna need the both of them....and them finding a way to coexist...

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

              now back on topic....

              i do believe jo's marching orders following the season were to do some soul searching and decide if he would do whatever it takes to insure the two of them are able to work together....and bird believes he can do that...and we all hope that he will

              however, if he cannot or will not...then i expect bird wants that decision prior to training camp....and then bird will look to make a trade prior to the season...

              i would expect them to target whomever they want to replace jo, whether it be kg, brand, chandler or whomever....then call and attempt to trade artest for that guy, knowing full well that wont get it done and things will eventually lead to jo....

              so any leaks will be that artest is being shopped-which probably wouldnt come as a huge surprise......and a jo deal will go down and all will be shocked...

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

                Originally posted by foretaz

                i was referring primarily to the start they had gotten the team off to...the two of them were playing at a very high level...until that fateful evening...
                You're confusing on-court success with a long-brewing off-court disaster.

                Ron finished the previous season blaming the coaches for making JO the #1 priority in Game #6 of the ECFs. Remember, Ron took that stupid 35-footer with lots of time on the shotclock while JO was setting a screen for Reggie, and Ron tried to dunk on four Pistons while Rick screamed at him to give the ball to JO. Then Ron told the press right after the game that the Pacers might've won if he had the ball more. What the **** did he want to do, take even more bad shots than the two he took??

                You like to dodge the fact that several of us said that night that it was the last straw, and Ron's done nothing to make it better since then, unless you consider quitting on the team, and having multiple altercations with the team's max-contract leader/ franchise player to be a good thing?

                Ron followed that up by declaring himself to be the team's MVP last summer. At least, to his credit, he then backpeddled and said the team had two MVPs. Not sure what that means, but whatever.

                The problems between JO and Ron have been brewing since before Rick got here. And Rick's had to deal with Ron publicly complaining about the offense, benched him for conduct detrimental to winning two seasons ago and made Ron sit out for two of the nine games he was eligible for last season.

                UncleBuck just wants them to get along on the court. I think he says that because he knows that JO and Rick just can't stand Ron - in part because they can't trust him to stay focuses and in part because Ron refuses to accept his role as JO's second-banana, even though they appreciate his talent. Maybe they could all find a way to put all that behind them and focus on getting along on-the-court, but Ron's got to earn their trust. For many of us, the only surprise in Austin's comments to the New York Times was that somebody actually said what was on their mind instead of the politically-correct B.S. we've come to expect.

                If Rick and JO despise Ron, its hard to blame them. Ron's been bad for team chemistry, period. There's no other way around that, and even UncleBuck will admit it (just about everyone on here but Suaveness will admit it.) I wouldn't blame Bird for saying to JO - "You've got to try harder to accept Ron." But if something else happens and the feud continues, I seriously doubt that Bird would be blaming JO, privately.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

                    ron for mvp....
                    "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

                      Originally posted by foretaz
                      1) Like you can talk.

                      2) You don't have much to say here because even the most ardent, yet logically grounded, Artest supporters take the position that his talent is "just too good" and because of that "the chemistry problems don't matter."

                      And that's a fine position to take if you like to see great basketball in November and December, and then watch the team fail to fulfill its promise in the spring.

                      But to just pretend that things were fine at the beginning of the season because (1) that's what you'd like to believe, and (2) the team happened to play well in the six games that JO and Ron played together in (and played well in the one game JO missed due to injury, and played well in the first game Ron was suspended/ benched from), well that's laughable case of ignoring the facts to make a weak case. Seeing as how Ron had already gotten himself benched/suspended for two games in an incident that actually bothers many of us much more than the other thing that happend at the end of Game #9.

                      The last I checked, the NBA doesn't measure for rings during November, or the Pacers might have a few "championships" by now. Even Dick Versace once got the Pacers off to a hot start in November, only to finish 0.500. As did Isiah, before that team came unglued. Way too much emphasis is put on the first nine games of last season.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

                          Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                          ... which guy do you think Bird would side with, and which do you think he would look to trade?

                          I've always thought if the two of them could never get along, that Artest would be dumped in a hurry. Lately, though, I'm not as convinced that Larry thinks the same way.
                          Assuming both are healthy, its a no brainer you keep the big man.

                          I don't know why some folks are so down on JO, currently the only big men better than JO are Shaq, Tim and KG.

                          Ron played a leading role in Chicago and they still lost a lot (yeah he was young but he didn't show the Bulls enough to keep him).

                          JO might not be perfect but I think it would be a long time before we would find a big man his equal that would be willing to sign with the Pacers long term. I think we are fortunate to have him.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

                            Originally posted by canyoufeelit
                            Artest's skillset is unique and irreplacable. Nobody in the league combines his defense, post game, perimeter game, and aggression. Nobody. Whether or not it's a bad thing is debatable though.

                            JO is an above average post player, but he isn't totally unique as a player. There are guys better than him at what he does.
                            Outside of Shaq, Tim and KG who would you replace him with?

                            Brand? He isn't a 7 footer and what does he do significantly better than JO other then never having a controversial opinion.

                            Amare? Like he would ever set foot here, and JO's post game is farther along. Amare's game needs a significant amount of running, without Tinsley on the floor we are not going to run that much.

                            Who else? Ben or Sheed? Well Ben is great unless you want consistent offense out of him. And Sheed, well like Ben I would like what I would get on defense but the Pacers do want an offensive big man down low and Sheed some games decides he doesn't want to be in the post.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

                              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                              I know what I'd do, (well, all of you do), but you could certainly get more for JO than Ron. And you'd need to. JO can dominate the low post at each end of the court, but so many of you take that skill for granted as if those players grow on trees.

                              The key, though, is Ron. Would whichever low post superstar you got in return for JO get along with Ron, either?

                              Very well said.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: If either Artest or O'Neal had to go...

                                Originally posted by foretaz

                                Because you never rant on here, right?

                                When someone gives you a well thought out reply like Jay did, and all you can respond with is smartass smilies such as "blah blah" and "beating a dead horse", you lose credibility. You rant just as much as anyone else does, if notand since Jay disagrees with you, you brush his post off like it's just a bunch of meaningless ranting.

                                "Beating a Horse" is continually talking about an issue(Brad Miller for example) that really doesn't matter anymore. There's nothing we can do about Brad Miller being gone, so when people like myself complain about the trade....that's beating a dead horse.

                                I don't understand how talking about Ron's issues is beating a dead horse. Anything to do with Ron's past few seasons is very relavent to where the Pacers are right now. Ron's actions were very relavant to the team, and they're a great concern to many fans, including myself.

                                I know, I know, Ron's a great talent. Those problems he caused shouldn't matter, because when he was playing this season, we beat teams in meaningless November games.

                                I would much rather have a player that is concerned with team basketball than a player that is a "great talent" but is a constant distraction to the team. I get the impression around here that the Pacers are eternally damned if Ron Artest isn't on the team next season. If the Pacers could just get a decent player for him that is concerned with team basketball, I'd be just fine.

                                Judging by your response to Jay, feuding with the max contract player, quitting on the team......etc don't matter at all and shouldn't be of concern to anyone.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X