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

Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

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

  • Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

    I don't know how much credible this info is, but it definitelly is interesting:

    http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_15875.shtml
    Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

    The Sacramento Kings and Indiana Pacers triggered a deal yesterday that sent Peja Stojakovic to the Pacers in exchange for the troublesome but talented Ron Artest. The deal had it issues along the way, and several incarnations of this deal took place before it became official. Here are some of the behind the scenes actions that made this deal happen…

    #1 – IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN BONZI: A well placed Kings source explained that the original offer was Bonzi Wells, and that was interesting to the Pacers if it included Francisco Garcia or Kevin Martin. Bonzi got hurt and the deal got scrapped. When the Pacers started looking at the Clippers offer of Corey Maggette, the injury concerns about whether or not Corey needs a screw inserted in his foot, brought the Kings back to the table with a Peja deal… The Pacers made a push to get more than just Peja, and the Kings were about to toss in a 2nd player, when news of the deal leaked, and Ron Artest’s agent threw water on the deal.

    #2 – THE PACERS APPLIED THE PRESSURE: After news of the trade broke and Artest’s agent made the statement that Ron did not want to be a King, the Pacers called a face to face meeting with Ron, his agent and Player’s Union chief Billy Hunter. The Pacers made it abundantly clear to Ron they were prepared to suspend him without pay for the balance of the season if Ron did not become more cooperative with the process. He was urged to have a call with Maloofs, at which time all of Ron’s concerns were put to rest, and all of the Maloof’s concerns were also put to rest, and the deal moved forward. The Pacers refuse to discuss the tone of the meeting, but a Pacer’s source say Ron was explained where he stood legally and what the Pacers were prepared to do.

    #3 – THE FUTURE: Peja is a short term tryout… The Pacers are not sold that Peja will stay beyond the season, but see him as a good fit to spread the floor – if his shot starts falling. The Pacers did try and extract an additional player from the Kings – word is it was Francisco Garcia, the Pacers coveted, but ultimately Ron’s outburst saved the Kings a player, and cost the Pacers a promising young guy. The Kings view Ron as exactly what they are missing… toughness and defense. Mike Bibby was said to be sad to see his good friend Peja Stojakovic go, but was said to be thrilled to get a talent like Ron in return. Kings players publicly say they are looking forward to Ron joining the team, and Ron should be a fan favorite in ARCO Arena.

    Peja Stojakovic may not join the Pacers for several days as he was given permission to get his affairs in order. Ron Artest is expected to meet the Kings in Boston and may be in uniform for the Kings in Boston, although Kings sources say he will not play until he has a few practices in, and the team can see what kind of shape he is in.

  • #2
    Re: Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

    The Pacers did try and extract an additional player from the Kings – word is it was Francisco Garcia, the Pacers coveted, but ultimately Ron’s outburst saved the Kings a player, and cost the Pacers a promising young guy.
    Interesting stuff there.

    Ron continued screwing us until the last possible moment.



    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

      Originally posted by SwissExpress
      I don't know how much credible this info is, but it definitelly is interesting:

      The Pacers made a push to get more than just Peja, and the Kings were about to toss in a 2nd player, when news of the deal leaked, and Ron Artest’s agent threw water on the deal.
      That's not how things work.

      The deal pending league approval was Artest for Peja when Artest’s agent threw water on the deal. The only time the Pacers could have moved for a second player is before submitting it for league approval. So there was no second player in the deal.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

        I hope that isn't true. If he really did cost us Garcia as well...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

          That article confirms a lot of things I'd heard from other sources, too. Too bad we missed out on getting Garcia.

          My biggest fear is that Peja leaves this summer with us getting no compensation back. On top of that, this summer will be a particularly weak free agent class, with Harrington probably at the top of the list (assuming Big Ben resigns).

          If Peja leaves and we get nothing in return, do we go after Al? Perhaps a S&T involving Tinsley? Wouldn't a slashing SG (like Maggette ) be a better acquisition for this team, though?
          "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
          -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

            Originally posted by Will Galen
            That's not how things work.

            The deal pending league approval was Artest for Peja when Artest’s agent threw water on the deal. The only time the Pacers could have moved for a second player is before submitting it for league approval. So there was no second player in the deal.
            That assumes that the deal really was in front of the league office for approval, in its final form, as a straight-up deal.

            There were rumblings Tuesday that there was more to the deal than Ron and Peja. Perhaps, after Ron's agent mucked things up, the Kings were no longer willing to throw in an extra player.

            Besides, we've also learned in the past day or so that league approval is via a "conference call". I'm sure the league's excel monkeys could do the math of adding another player in about 45 to 60 seconds. I've seen the salary cap file, its pretty easy to make the comparisons.

            I wouldn't be so dismissive about that rumor, yet.
            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


            • #7
              Re: Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
              That assumes that the deal really was in front of the league office for approval, in its final form, as a straight-up deal.

              There were rumblings Tuesday that there was more to the deal than Ron and Peja. Perhaps, after Ron's agent mucked things up, the Kings were no longer willing to throw in an extra player.

              Besides, we've also learned in the past day or so that league approval is via a "conference call". I'm sure the league's excel monkeys could do the math of adding another player in about 45 to 60 seconds. I've seen the salary cap file, its pretty easy to make the comparisons.

              I wouldn't be so dismissive about that rumor, yet.
              The rumor is accurate.

              The trade that was going to be submitted to the league was not in it's final form as a simple 1 for 1 trade. It was still in the process of being "tweaked" when Ron-Ron did his thang.

              He cost us a decent prospect on his last day as a Pacer. It's only fitting.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

                Originally posted by btowncolt
                The rumor is accurate.

                The trade that was going to be submitted to the league was not in it's final form as a simple 1 for 1 trade. It was still in the process of being "tweaked" when Ron-Ron did his thang.

                He cost us a decent prospect on his last day as a Pacer. It's only fitting.
                Then why did the Kings only hold out Peja for their game with the Sixers that evening, and not hold this "other" player out as well, unless there was no certainty on who that "other" player might be.

                At this point I'm not buying that. The Pacers certainly would have required more than just Wells, thus the inclusion of another player/prospect, but once the Kings put Peja on the table, that was the deal.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

                  Originally posted by shockedandchagrined
                  Then why did the Kings only hold out Peja for their game with the Sixers that evening, and not hold this "other" player out as well, unless there was no certainty on who that "other" player might be.

                  At this point I'm not buying that. The Pacers certainly would have required more than just Wells, thus the inclusion of another player/prospect, but once the Kings put Peja on the table, that was the deal.
                  They weren't certain who the prospect would be, you are correct.

                  You don't have to buy it, but it's the truth.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

                    Originally posted by shockedandchagrined
                    Then why did the Kings only hold out Peja for their game with the Sixers that evening, and not hold this "other" player out as well, unless there was no certainty on who that "other" player might be.
                    The deal collapsed with enough time to call Peja at the hotel and tell him to "come on over."

                    There was still plenty of time to tell Garcia or whomever else was included to hand in his playbook before the game.
                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

                      Originally posted by btowncolt
                      They weren't certain who the prospect would be, you are correct.

                      You don't have to buy it, but it's the truth.
                      It's the truth, or it's rumored to be the truth.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

                        Originally posted by shockedandchagrined
                        It's the truth, or it's rumored to be the truth.
                        Your choice to believe whatever you want on the internet. I'd be skeptical too.

                        But some of us are very careful to differentiate when discussing a rumor or a fact.

                        Either way, Artesticles is finally gone, so let's have a cyber-drink.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

                          Originally posted by shockedandchagrined
                          Then why did the Kings only hold out Peja for their game with the Sixers that evening, and not hold this "other" player out as well, unless there was no certainty on who that "other" player might be.

                          .
                          Because that would make it pretty obvious to that player and his teammates that he was part of the trade discussion.

                          I've known for weeks that the Pacers had a great deal of interest in Kevin Martin and am not surprised to "hear" that they were interested in Garcia as well. I still think its a blessing that Bonzi got hurt because I'm not a big fan, to say the least. Bonzi back in Indiana would have been a bad thing.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

                            Originally posted by btowncolt
                            Your choice to believe whatever you want on the internet. I'd be skeptical too.

                            But some of us are very careful to differentiate when discussing a rumor or a fact.

                            Either way, Artesticles is finally gone, so let's have a cyber-drink.
                            Fair enough on the toast to Artest's exodus! Believe me, it doesn't surprise me that the Pacers attempted to get the likes of Garcia in addition to Peja, but considering the risk that everyone knows the Kings are taking in obtaining Artest, it just seems like relinquishing a prospect to boot is a bit fanciful. That's all.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Hoopsworld.com: Three Things To Know About The Artest Deal…

                              [QUOTE=Jay@Section204]That assumes that the deal really was in front of the league office for approval, in its final form, as a straight-up deal.

                              So you want us to believe the Pacers and Kings sent a deal to the league office that wasn't in it's final form?

                              There were rumblings Tuesday that there was more to the deal than Ron and Peja. Perhaps, after Ron's agent mucked things up, the Kings were no longer willing to throw in an extra player.

                              I read everything and the only rumblings were people on web sites asking if that was it.


                              Besides, we've also learned in the past day or so that league approval is via a "conference call". I'm sure the league's excel monkeys could do the math of adding another player in about 45 to 60 seconds. I've seen the salary cap file, its pretty easy to make the comparisons.

                              No doubt. However, what it would boil down to if that was correct was that the Pacers agreed to a deal for Ron and it was submitted to the league office and then they wanted more and Sac agreed to it. Yeah, like that's going to happen!

                              I wouldn't be so dismissive about that rumor, yet.

                              The past month should have made everyone realize that media outlets have their own agendas. In short they don't care if something is true or not, just that it gets them attention. So what will happen with this rumor? Just that some will forever believe it true just because they want to believe it. People are already believing it on here.

                              Rumors aside, Hoopsworlds timeline isn't the way things work. That other players were discussed I have no doubt, but it would be before being submitted to the league. Teams just don't agree to a deal and submit it to the NBA league office and then agree to give more.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X