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

Did I miss it????

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

  • #31
    Re: Did I miss it????

    Originally posted by Peck

    Either way your barking up the wrong tree with me when it comes to talking about that season. I thought that was one of the most boring teams to watch that we've ever had. Other than the wins, I just didn't think much of that team.
    There was this man that had a steak dinner. It was the best steak dinner he ever had.* When he was asked how it was he complained, "They forgot the garnishment."




    *Sixty-one wins is the best Pacer season ever.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Did I miss it????

      Originally posted by Will Galen
      There was this man that had a steak dinner. It was the best steak dinner he ever had.* When he was asked how it was he complained, "They forgot the garnishment."




      *Sixty-one wins is the best Pacer season ever.
      Except that the championship is the steak. The 61 wins should be the garnishment.
      You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
      All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

      - Jimmy Buffett

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Did I miss it????

        Originally posted by Doug
        Except that the championship is the steak. The 61 wins should be the garnishment.
        Nice sound bite, but the conversation was about 61 wins.

        My story makes a point.

        Your comment was . . . just that, a comment.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Did I miss it????

          Originally posted by Peck
          The ONLY reason?????

          Hmmmm.......

          You've asked me before & I honestly dodged the quesiton.

          but you've just admitted this yourself so I am going to ask you straight up.

          Do you not like Jermaine O'Neal?

          By saying Ron was the only reason that implies (well actually it doesn't imply it comes out & says it) that nobody else was good enough.

          That doesn't say much about a player who is making Max. salary.

          I'll stop avoiding the issue if you answer this for me.

          Perhaps I did explain myself very well. Obviosly Ron is not the only reason they won 61 games, maybe Ron and Jeff are the only two reasons. No, just kidding. Obviously all the players were needed. Ron was the most important player, J.O second, so he was very important.

          But without Ron that team does not win 61 games. Some of you seem to think if only Ron wasn't on the team they would have been great. And that is simply not true.

          Do I like J.O. Yes I do. He is lazy sometimes and he is injured a lot and he rarely blocks out, but I don't agree with Bball that the Pacers are better without J.O. Pacers need J.O. to be anything better than average.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Did I miss it????

            Originally posted by Will Galen
            Nice sound bite, but the conversation was about 61 wins.

            My story makes a point.

            Your comment was . . . just that, a comment.
            Actually, mine makes a point too, just not the same one you were making. Both are relevant, I think. Your point to Peck is "who cares if it's boring or not, appreciate the beauty of a 61 win season". Mine was that 61 regular season wins don't mean much if you don't win the championship.

            But yes, I think we can agree it was a nice sound bite. :-)
            You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
            All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

            - Jimmy Buffett

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Did I miss it????

              Originally posted by Unclebuck

              Do I like J.O. Yes I do. He is lazy sometimes and he is injured a lot and he rarely blocks out, but I don't agree with Bball that the Pacers are better without J.O. Pacers need J.O. to be anything better than average.
              ...Either JO needs to raise his game to another level, or the team needs to rethink their utilization of JO (altho since he's injured it's a moot point right now).

              On the Artest thing.... I sincerely hope that conventional wisdom is correct and Ron could never be tamed or be a good teammate (that his good play was really fool's gold and the reality being his next incident would be just around the corner).

              I have no problem agreeing with Uncle Buck that Artest was the straw that stirred the Pacers.

              If we find out that some teammate understanding, and making him the clear #1 guy, was the answer to all the question marks then we've certainly screwed the pooch.

              OTOH, if conventional wisdom is correct then we waited far too long to make this move.

              -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


              • #37
                Re: Did I miss it????

                You guys are seriously underestimating the impact of Jermaine O'Neal, who was a top-three MVP candidate that season, and Jamaal Tinsley, who had a tremendous W-L record as the team's starting PG that season.

                When they got hurt, that season was over, period. Ron, even if he was healthy mentally, still wasn't/ isn't that good.

                The revisionist history is entertaining, however.
                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: Did I miss it????

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                  You guys are seriously underestimating the impact of Jermaine O'Neal, who was a top-three MVP candidate that season, and Jamaal Tinsley, who had a tremendous W-L record as the team's starting PG that season.

                  When they got hurt, that season was over, period. Ron, even if he was healthy mentally, still wasn't/ isn't that good.

                  The revisionist history is entertaining, however.
                  It really feels weird being closer to Uncle Buck's position than your's or Peck's.

                  I think I need to see a doctor about these flu symptoms. It might be worse than I think!

                  -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


                  • #39
                    Re: Did I miss it????

                    Originally posted by Will Galen
                    There was this man that had a steak dinner. It was the best steak dinner he ever had.* When he was asked how it was he complained, "They forgot the garnishment."




                    *Sixty-one wins is the best Pacer season ever.

                    Actually factually you are incorrect.

                    It may have been the best regular season record ever but it was not the best season ever. Making the N.B.A. finals would be better than losing in the Conferance finals no matter how you want to slice it.

                    We've been down this road before though so we'll all just agree to disagree on this.

                    You look at 61 wins & see the Zenith.

                    I think the team had a bloated record & was fundamentally flawed.

                    I will still stand by my statement that any of the Larry Brown or Larry Bird coached teams would have smoked that unit in a 7 games series & they wouldn't need more than 5 games to do it.


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

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Did I miss it????

                      As weak as the East was that season, the Bo Hill era Pacers would've won 55-58 games against that competition, and played an interesting seven-game series, too.

                      Dreiling vs. Foster - slight edge to Foster for althleticism
                      Tank/DD vs. JO - obvious edge to JO
                      Chuck vs. Ron - Chuck would've scored, and Ron would've melted down from Chuck's talking
                      Reggie vs. Reggie - Younger Reggie could score more in the first half, older Reggie could still hit the big shot in the last minute or get his layup blocked in the last minute. Didn't matter if Reggie always disappeared, though. Chuck was Mr. Clutch for that team. Younger Reggie.
                      Micheal Williams vs. Tinsley - Yes, I'll say it, Micheal Williams.

                      Bench
                      Smits/ Detlef/ Vern > Al/ AJ/ Fred



                      +

                      +

                      +

                      +

                      +







                      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: Did I miss it????

                        Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                        As weak as the East was that season, the Bo Hill era Pacers would've won 55-58 games against that competition, and played an interesting seven-game series, too.

                        Dreiling vs. Foster - slight edge to Foster for althleticism
                        Tank/DD vs. JO - obvious edge to JOChuck vs. Ron - Chuck would've scored, and Ron would've melted down from Chuck's talking
                        Reggie vs. Reggie - Younger Reggie could score more in the first half, older Reggie could still hit the big shot in the last minute or get his layup blocked in the last minute. Didn't matter if Reggie always disappeared, though. Chuck was Mr. Clutch for that team. Younger Reggie.
                        Micheal Williams vs. Tinsley - Yes, I'll say it, Micheal Williams.

                        Bench
                        Smits/ Detlef/ Vern > Al/ AJ/ Fred



                        +

                        +

                        +

                        +

                        +








                        Not as obvious as you would think.

                        Dale shut J.O. down every single time they played against each other while he was in Portland & only the last time did J.O. ever have a good game against him.

                        Dale was exaclty the type of player that caused J.O. fits. He was stronger than J.O., more physical than J.O, tougher than J.O. & as quick as J.O.

                        Your talking about Dale in his early prime there so I would even say Dale was faster than J.O.

                        Dale wasn't going to score for us, but I can tell you now he would shut O'Neal down. Becuase he did it every time vs. the Blazer.


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

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Did I miss it????

                          Yeah, but I was originally thinking of the Tank Thompson era, and at that time Dale was a much better rebounder than defender.

                          I think his defense really blossomed later, beginning with Larry Brown. Just my , though.
                          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


                          • #43
                            Re: Did I miss it????

                            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                            The revisionist history is entertaining, however.

                            I agree with you 100%. We agree on something

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Did I miss it????

                              Originally posted by Bball
                              It really feels weird being closer to Uncle Buck's position than your's or Peck's.

                              I think I need to see a doctor about these flu symptoms. It might be worse than I think!

                              -Bball


                              It might feel wierd, but it sure feels good doesn't it

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Did I miss it????

                                Here is my heartfelt tribute to Ronnie.


                                Well not really, but a good article

                                http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports...14964777c.html

                                Ailene Voisin: Ron vs. Ron
                                By Ailene Voisin -- Bee Sports Columnist
                                Published 2:15 am PST Tuesday, January 31, 2006
                                The Kings are expecting a lot from a guy with a horrible reputation. They are asking Ron Artest to tame his inner beast, in essence, to perform with the ferocity of an All-Star while behaving like the perfect gentleman. They want him to sip from the Kings' Kool-Aid dispenser (see Chris Webber) whenever he feels the urge to, say, kick a water cooler, assault a television monitor or wave a finger to the crowd.
                                Behavior modification, not a miracle. That's the goal.

                                No more brawls. No more tantrums. No more vacation requests to pursue other interests. No more suspensions. Just play the game and collect the paycheck, and if his obsession with defense becomes contagious and his teammates respond with a playoff sprint, all the other stuff - all the bad stuff - will be conveniently and permanently forgotten.

                                So why would anyone suggest any of this is possible?

                                Because Artest is two people. Because the man known as Ron-Ron is a split decision. One Ron engages in all sorts of crazy activity, even ignites a brawl that leads to the most severe penalty ever assessed by NBA Commissioner David Stern, while the other Ron is so well-liked, is regarded as such a genuinely kind and compassionate human being, that in the aftermath of last week's Artest-Peja Stojakovic trade, members of the Pacers' organization continue to experience conflicting and powerful sentiments. According to team president Larry Bird, their immense relief is tempered by a tremendous sense of loss, perhaps even a sense of failure.

                                "He's just a great kid," an impassioned Bird said Monday during a lengthy conversation. "That's why this was so hard. We tried to do the best we could. Ronnie's got a lot of things going on, a lot of pressures. But he seemed like he was doing well.

                                "After the (Nov. 19, 2004) brawl, he would look you in the eye, get more in-depth in his conversations. I felt he was on the road to recovery. It (Artest's trade demands) really caught me by surprise."

                                Complicating the Artest puzzle are several lesser-known pieces to a personality that contrast sharply with his public image. The sound bites, for instance, seldom mention he is one of the league's most generous players, that he financially sponsors youngsters at the prestigious Five-Star development camp, conducts basketball clinics near the projects where he grew up in Queensbridge, N.Y., signs autographs willingly, mingles with fans routinely, and has a soft spot for the underprivileged.

                                Artest and his wife, Kimsha, already the parents of four children, also plan to adopt another child this summer because they feel compelled to share their wealth and comfortable lifestyle; race and gender are said to be irrelevant.

                                "You can learn a lot about a person by going back to where they're from," said Brad Miller, a close friend and former teammate of Artest in Chicago and Indianapolis, "and when I spent an afternoon with Ronnie one day during our (Pacers) playoffs against New Jersey, it was pretty amazing. We'd be walking around, and everybody knew him. This window, that window, people were yelling, 'Go get them, Ron.' He was just down to earth and nice to everybody. I realized right then what a good person he was."

                                But Artest is also an unfiltered and uncensored monologue, inclined to say whatever he thinks at a particular moment. Issues inevitably arise because he is known to change his mind a few minutes later. Though he chafed in Rick Carlisle's structured offense, for instance, several of those close to the situation doubt he ever really wanted to relocate, that as he stated only weeks earlier, he wanted to live in his adopted hometown of Indianapolis forever.

                                Yet when speculation erupted in December about a possible swap for Stojakovic, Artest arrived at the Pacers' ensuing game dressed in a purple suit. Asked by a beat writer to explain his choice of colors, the seventh-year pro allowed that he was receptive to joining the Kings if given an opportunity to speak first with Geoff Petrie, and Joe and Gavin Maloof. He just didn't want to be ignored. He feared becoming an afterthought and, somewhat ironically, the matter spiraling out of his control.

                                "Ron's issues are emotional," offered Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh, "not biological, and like I told Geoff (Petrie), I think the big incidents are behind him. We just reached a point where we had to move on. Our team had become gun-shy. The last time (trade demand), I remember thinking, there was no way I could bring him back. But Sacramento is getting one hell of a player."



                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Artest can become an addiction. The more you watch him, the more you want to see. Bird on Monday described his former star as "the most unique player I've ever seen," and then proceeded to gush about his skills.
                                "You look at him," the Hall of Fame forward continued, "and his shot is off-balance, he gets into people going into the lane, hits tough shots. And defensively ... I told Ronnie the only guy he can't shut down (laugh) is Bonzi Wells. Bonzi always killed him."

                                At 6-foot-7 and 260 pounds, Artest is shorter and thicker than the sinewy Dennis Rodman, the player with whom he most often is compared. He has wide hips and powerful shoulders, thick hamstrings and a slight bow to his lower legs. His low center of gravity, coupled with instinct and anticipation, allow him to consistently hit the floor for loose balls faster than his opponents. And his hands are so sneaky-quick he remains a constant threat to lead the league in steals.

                                Yet what most distinguishes Artest, 26, from so many of his peers - apart from the outbursts and assorted sorry deeds - is his unbridled, if undisciplined, desire to be great and his willingness to outwit and outwork his opponents. Therein lies the root of lingering leaguewide infatuation. Low-post skills can be taught. Perimeter shooting can improve. But love of the game? Passion for the rebound, for the steal, for the deciding play?

                                That comes from within, from the heart, and sometimes, as Artest himself allows, from the streets.

                                "To do well on the playgrounds of New York," he said, "you have to have the basketball. Everybody just stands out there and dribbles. You gotta go get the ball. Growing up I did a little of everything. I was always tall. But I don't know why it is. I just always loved playing defense."

                                His versatility earned him a scholarship to St. John's; his development resulted in an opportunity with the Bulls, who selected him with the 16th pick in the 1999 NBA draft. His subsequent troubles factored into his trade (almost as a throw-in because the Pacers wanted Miller) to Indiana in February 2002. His subsequent issues - among them an alleged domestic altercation with a former girlfriend - led to a laundry list of suspensions and lengthy absences: Three games for smashing video equipment in New York; four games for confronting Pat Riley on the sidelines; one game for demolishing a framed picture of himself in Conseco Fieldhouse; one game for a flagrant foul on his new teammate, Wells.

                                On and on it goes, culminating in the Pacers-Pistons brawl at the Palace of Auburn Hills and, ultimately, his dispatch last week to the left coast.



                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                With the Kings slumping miserably and the Maloofs pushing hard for a shake-up, Petrie two weeks ago instructed Jerry Reynolds to contact fellow French Lick, Ind., native Bird and inquire about Artest. What Petrie learned - aside from the obvious, namely, that Artest is a superior talent with a checkered history - is that the Pacers went to great lengths in their pursuit of stability. Before Artest was ordered by the league to undergo anger management counseling in the aftermath of the brawl, in fact, team officials had enlisted input from medical and psychology experts, and for years Indiana has had a sports therapist on staff.
                                And it wasn't enough. The counseling. The coaxing. The coddling. The tough love near the end.

                                "But people change," Artest said. "I've been through so much. I've played something like 16 games in 1 1/2 years. The people of Sacramento will see. I just want to play. Emotionally, I think I am ready to do this."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X