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

Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

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

  • Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...ory?id=1786517

    INDIANAPOLIS -- Boston Celtics rookie Brandon Hunter said he was not trying to start a fight with Indiana Pacers star Jermaine O'Neal when he pulled him to the ground in Game 1 of their playoff series.


    Speaking for the first time since the altercation, Hunter said he was simply playing aggressively and got tangled with O'Neal under the basket.


    "I'm not even that type of player," Hunter said Tuesday in the shootaround prior to Game 2. "I just went in there to be aggressive and try to get a rebound."


    The confrontation between the two ultimately led to Indiana's Ron Artest being suspended for Game 2.


    In the second quarter of Indiana's 104-88 win on Saturday, Hunter grabbed O'Neal and threw him to the floor. O'Neal got up and immediately confronted Hunter, then drew a technical for yelling at Celtics guard Ricky Davis.


    Artest, who was on the bench at the time, started onto the court when he saw O'Neal lose his composure, but turned and headed back to the bench after about four steps. Nevertheless, the league suspended him for Game 2.


    After the game, and the next day at practice, Pacers coach Rick Carlisle and O'Neal both said they believe Hunter was put in the game to bait O'Neal into an ejection.


    "They had a young, strong player throwing an MVP candidate on the floor, and it looked like he was doing it intentionally," Carlisle said.


    Celtics coach John Carroll strongly denied the allegations.


    "Brandon Hunter wasn't sent in the game to do anything because Brandon Hunter didn't even match up with Jermaine O'Neal. He was matched up with Al Harrington," Carroll said Tuesday. "It was kind of an unfortunate situation."


    Hunter said he wasn't bothered by Carlisle's remarks and that O'Neal was the one who initiated physical play under the basket.


    "To me, whatever, I really don't care what he had to say, how he felt," Hunter said. "I know I didn't do it on purpose. If it had been me trying to foul him on purpose, it would have been a lot more worse than that."


    The Celtics lobbied hard for Artest's suspension and the league obliged on Monday. Carlisle said Harrington would start in his place.


    "The league was put in a precarious situation," Carroll said. "If you're trying to keep order in the playoffs, you almost have to do something. And it's unfortunate because I don't think Ron had a malicious bone in his body. It was a thing that happened, and you knew that he came on the court, and he got off as soon as he could."
    "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
    -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

  • #2
    Re: Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

    I have to agree %100.

    Brandon Hunter is one of the strongest players I've seen this year. He's no stranger to physical play.

    If Hunter really wanted to hurt JO, ihe would have REALLY hurt JO. Plain and simple. Guys throw each other to thr ground on accident under the basket every play. The fact Hunter did it on purpose doesn't somehow make it villianous.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

      I have to agree %100.

      Brandon Hunter is one of the strongest players I've seen this year. He's no stranger to physical play.

      If Hunter really wanted to hurt JO, ihe would have REALLY hurt JO. Plain and simple. Guys throw each other to thr ground on accident under the basket every play. The fact Hunter did it on purpose doesn't somehow make it villianous.
      Yeah, but if he wanted to hurt J.O. just enough to cause a week-long injury, technical foul, ejection etc. he would have done exactly what he did.

      I don't buy it at all. And look at Jim Carroll acting like he feels bad for Ron Artest, after bending over backwards to get him suspended. What an a**hole.

      We're gonna sweep these punks, I can feel it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

        Actually you can Blame Danny Anige , from what I have been reading he made 3 calls to the League about getting Artest suspended , Shouldn't 1 Call been sufficent if you felt you had to make a call ?
        Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

          If it had been me trying to foul him on purpose, it would have been a lot more worse than that."
          good english has went.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

            If it had been me trying to foul him on purpose, it would have been a lot more worse than that."
            good english has went.
            I was thinking the same thing. Props for the physique, kid, but take a few English classes.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

              indygeezer had a good point that I think is appropriate in a Hunter thread:

              OTOH...Hunter was supposedly in game 1 because he's become such a rebounder etc (according to published comments)...so? How many minutes did he get last night????????

              Uh-huh...DNP-CD. RRRRiiiiiiight....that makes those comments believable huh?
              Yeah, interesting. Coach says he's in for his bball skills, not to **** with our all-stars, yet he gets a DNP-CD the next game. Funny.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

                I don't buy that he was trying to hurt him.

                I do buy that he may have been trying to get under his skin and take him out of the game - either mentally or by getting him ejected.

                JO needs someone else on the team - Foster maybe (Pollard would do it if he was on the floor) to get his back when that happens.

                Folks used to hammer Ewing all the time and try to take him out of his game. And they found out that they would get an answer from Charles Oakley. Wouldn't even be right then but a play or two later Oak would watch for his moment and deliver that chest bump of his that was like running into a brick wall.

                Teams got the message. And that's how you respond when teams take shots at your franchise player.
                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

                  Exactly. Back in the day Mel Daniels had George Peeples watching his back.
                  The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

                    I have to agree %100.

                    Brandon Hunter is one of the strongest players I've seen this year. He's no stranger to physical play.

                    If Hunter really wanted to hurt JO, ihe would have REALLY hurt JO. Plain and simple. Guys throw each other to thr ground on accident under the basket every play. The fact Hunter did it on purpose doesn't somehow make it villianous.
                    ed:

                    Check the box score from last night, KStat. If Hunter is so good and so strong, why didn't he play? The Celtics are a horrible rebounding team, and were absolutely dominated on the glass. If Hunter is as "strong" as you say he is, kind of makes you wonder why he didn't see the floor.

                    The guy was brought in the start a fight. Simple as that. Pathetic thug ball tactics initiated by a pathetic coach and team willing to degrade the sport of basketball just to get a cheap win.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

                      I agree with DisplacedKnick and KStat. I don't think Hunter was trying to hurt JO. Get under his skin? Sure why not, you attack whatever weaknesses you perceive. JO said right after the game that he thought it was just basketball, and that he didn't react well.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

                        I agree with DisplacedKnick and KStat. I don't think Hunter was trying to hurt JO. Get under his skin? Sure why not, you attack whatever weaknesses you perceive. JO said right after the game that he thought it was just basketball, and that he didn't react well.
                        Here's where we disagree: it was not "just basketball." Hunter's antics (and Carroll's tactic) do not belong in pro basketball. Street ball? Sure. A pick-up game? Why not. A professional basketball league that once featured the class of Dumars, Jabbar, Magic, and Robinson?

                        No.

                        Such tactics should be disciplined as severely as Artest was disciplined for leaving the bench.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

                          I agree with DisplacedKnick and KStat. I don't think Hunter was trying to hurt JO. Get under his skin? Sure why not, you attack whatever weaknesses you perceive. JO said right after the game that he thought it was just basketball, and that he didn't react well.
                          Here's where we disagree: it was not "just basketball." Hunter's antics (and Carroll's tactic) do not belong in pro basketball. Street ball? Sure. A pick-up game? Why not. A professional basketball league that once featured the class of Dumars, Jabbar, Magic, and Robinson?

                          No.

                          Such tactics should be disciplined as severely as Artest was disciplined for leaving the bench.
                          But to kick/trip a guy when's he in the air for a jumpshot, that's just... how did you say it ... oh, I know...

                          Nobody cares that Reggie tripped that guy, and if they do, they are dorks. If Reggie's trip was wrong, the league will fine him.
                          And, strangely enough, the official on the scene thought that was bad enough to warrant a "T".

                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

                            I agree with DisplacedKnick and KStat. I don't think Hunter was trying to hurt JO. Get under his skin? Sure why not, you attack whatever weaknesses you perceive. JO said right after the game that he thought it was just basketball, and that he didn't react well.
                            Here's where we disagree: it was not "just basketball." Hunter's antics (and Carroll's tactic) do not belong in pro basketball. Street ball? Sure. A pick-up game? Why not. A professional basketball league that once featured the class of Dumars, Jabbar, Magic, and Robinson?

                            No.

                            Such tactics should be disciplined as severely as Artest was disciplined for leaving the bench.
                            But to kick/trip a guy when's he in the air for a jumpshot, that's just... how did you say it ... oh, I know...

                            Nobody cares that Reggie tripped that guy, and if they do, they are dorks. If Reggie's trip was wrong, the league will fine him.
                            And, strangely enough, the official on the scene thought that was bad enough to warrant a "T".

                            Fine. He got a "T". I'll state again, WHO CARES!!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Hunter denies intent to hurt JO

                              I agree with DisplacedKnick and KStat. I don't think Hunter was trying to hurt JO. Get under his skin? Sure why not, you attack whatever weaknesses you perceive. JO said right after the game that he thought it was just basketball, and that he didn't react well.
                              Here's where we disagree: it was not "just basketball." Hunter's antics (and Carroll's tactic) do not belong in pro basketball. Street ball? Sure. A pick-up game? Why not. A professional basketball league that once featured the class of Dumars, Jabbar, Magic, and Robinson?

                              No.

                              Such tactics should be disciplined as severely as Artest was disciplined for leaving the bench.
                              But to kick/trip a guy when's he in the air for a jumpshot, that's just... how did you say it ... oh, I know...

                              Nobody cares that Reggie tripped that guy, and if they do, they are dorks. If Reggie's trip was wrong, the league will fine him.
                              And, strangely enough, the official on the scene thought that was bad enough to warrant a "T".

                              Fine. He got a "T". I'll state again, WHO CARES!!!
                              So what you're saying is that your whole "its not basketball" argument goes out the window if its the "home" team diplaying poor sportsmanship? Got it.

                              :P
                              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

                              Working...
                              X