Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Ron Artest

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

  • Ron Artest

    What is going on with him this season. Every other time i check SAC live game stats he isn't playing? I dont have cable and have only seen 2 pacer games all year, so yes im out of the loop.

    Whats going on with ron.
    *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

  • #2
    Re: Ron Artest

    He's been having back problems all season and just hasn't looked good at all. He's not playing tonight I assume because of his back

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Ron Artest

      He has a back injury and came off the bench last night. I guess it's worse so he didn't even play tonight. Looks like they almost beat San Antonio.
      You Got The Tony!!!!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Ron Artest

        But is it REALLY back problems? With Ron-Ron, you just never know.

        And now, it looks like he and Musselman are already starting to clash:

        http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/86436.html

        Artest calls for ball

        The Kings forward is unhappy after getting too few touches, in his view.

        By Sam Amick - Bee Staff Writer

        Last Updated 1:19 am PST Saturday, December 2, 2006

        Story appeared in SPORTS section, Page C1

        That first step? It was a doozy -- a dizzying, dominating, defenseless doozy in the Big D.

        The Kings didn't have enough "D" of any kind on Friday night at American Airlines Center, where the first leg of this Texas two-step was, well, a broken one.

        But it wasn't until long after the Dallas Mavericks disposed of the Kings 109-90 that the most damaging "D" of all came to the lips of its franchise player.

        Discontent.

        Kings small forward Ron Artest said the game was a sign that things need to change, namely his role in an offense that has plenty of capable scorers but sometimes struggles to identify the option he sees as the best one available. Himself. Specifically, Artest said he didn't have any offensive plays called for him beyond the first quarter.

        "Not to have no plays for the whole second quarter, for the whole second half, that doesn't make me happy at all," said Artest, who scored 15 points on 6-of-11 shooting. "Not from a selfish standpoint. There's got to be a way. We've got to find ways to get me the ball.

        "I know that's kind of selfish, but something has to happen. The organization needs to find out which way it wants to go, you know what I'm saying."

        Asked what he meant by "which way it wants to go," Artest said the coaching staff and management aren't in sync.

        "I think coach understands what I can do, you know," he said. "It just has to be clear between the organization and coach, at times, what type of players you have. Like in other situations, like (the Lakers), they understand who's the man over there.

        "Coach and player understand. In Cleveland ..."

        Artest wasn't there at the start, when the Kings came out slugglishly and the Mavericks shot three-pointers as if they were free throws in hitting 7 of 9 from beyond the arc. Artest didn't start the game because of the sore back that continues to bother him, then entered with 6:16 remaining in the first when the Mavericks were already up 21-12.

        He wasn't able to stop them either, though, and the Mavericks led 38-19 after the first quarter on the efforts of the long-range game. Dallas small forward Josh Howard -- who ranks third in the league in first-quarter scoring -- had 10 of his game-high 24 points in the opening period. The Kings, meanwhile, didn't help their own cause with six turnovers. From there, it was a replica of the Nov. 16 loss at Golden State, in which they fell behind big early and kept pace in the final three quarters.

        It was the second consecutive game in which Dallas scored 38 first-quarter points, and their 62-41 halftime lead was a season high in scoring for a half.

        "We knew of their past history in the first quarter, but we couldn't stop them," Kings coach Eric Musselman said.

        There was, and not for the first time, some contradiction in Artest's views. Just as he deemed himself the go-to guy, he good-naturedly told a national reporter in the locker room afterward to talk to Martin -- "the All-Star." Yet after hitting 5 of his first 6 shots and scoring 13 points, Martin went to the bench midway through the third quarter with the rest of the starters as Dallas' lead grew to 32 points. None of the Kings' starters played in the fourth quarter.

        "I thought our subs played hard, and I knew we had a game tonight (at San Antonio) as well," Musselman said.

        Martin, who was frustrated by being benched because of poor play in a victory over the Clippers on Tuesday, said he understood the decision this time.

        "We weren't getting it done as a group, so we deserved to be over there," he said.

        Artest, however, stayed in despite his sore back. It was the continuation of a trend that has taken place for much of the season -- Artest subbing himself in and out of games.

        "I wanted to win," he said. "No matter what the score is, I don't want to give up. We could've come back and won."

        The Bee's Sam Amick can be reached at samick@sacbee.com.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Ron Artest

          The honeymoon is officially over in Sactown. Now, it is time to place your bets. How does the Las Vegas Kings sound?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Ron Artest

            Originally posted by Shade View Post
            But is it REALLY back problems? With Ron-Ron, you just never know.

            http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/86436.html
            Well you never know for sure, but I've been reading and hearing about his back problems since the first couple days of training camp - so I doubt they would have started the "excuse" two months in advance of using it. And watching Ron play this season - it looks like a bad back to me

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Ron Artest

              Ron had back problems and that is the reason why he isn't playing as much lately

              His mental/attitude issues are still what is to be considered "normal" by Ron's standards.

              For how long - who knows. We are just not a good team anymore and Ron might not deal well with it. Time will tell - I guess
              Vulpes pilum mutat, non mores!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Ron Artest

                Who?
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Ron Artest

                  Ron Artest is the most selfish player in the NBA.

                  Does anyone disagree with that statement?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Ron Artest

                    Originally posted by Quis View Post
                    Ron Artest is the most selfish player in the NBA.

                    Does anyone disagree with that statement?
                    I would disagree with it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Ron Artest

                      Iverson, Francis, Marbury, Kobe. There's a pretty long list ahead of Ronnie.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Ron Artest

                        I was listening to Sports 1140 ( one of the SacTown radio stations ) and it sounded like he may have been benched by Musselman for missing practice.

                        Musselman has a rep for not taking any cr*p from players.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Ron Artest

                          Musselman's honestly been a terrible coach so far and yeah he's had back problems since the beginning of the season. Just not making shots he normally hits and stuff.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Ron Artest

                            Ron's got two main problems.

                            The first is that he thinks that he's on the same level as Kobe and LeBron. While he is very good, he's simply not on their level at this point. Ron feels like he should be a #1 option, which if you comply with that notion like Adelman did, he'll be happy, but you most likely won't win a title. If you don't comply, as Musselman isn't, Ron turns into a cancer. I'd like to point out that there wasn't a peep out of Ron in terms of his happiness until Kevin Martin became the consistent #1 option.

                            The second problem with Ron is that his competitiveness is often problematic. If you start losing, he immediately thinks he's going to "take over" and help you back towards winning. This often tends to only make the matter worse, especially if he's not shooting well.


                            I still think hiring Musselman was a bad choice given that they've got Ron on their roster. Scott Skiles would also be a bad choice.

                            I think one day Ron Artest will win a title. However, he needs two things for that to happen: a total alpha dog player who he knows he's not better than, and a player-friendly coach that "understands" him.

                            Here's what I'd do. Have Minnesota trade something fair like 1 first and a decent player to Sacramento for Ron. Pair him up with Garnett, who is obviously more talented, doesn't play Ron's position, shares his homicidal drive to win, and won't take any of his crap. Bring in Rick Adelman to coach the team, because he's a proven winner, and already has a good rapport with Ron.

                            Why don't I have Kevin McHale's job again?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Ron Artest

                              Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                              Ron's got two main problems.

                              The first is that he thinks that he's on the same level as Kobe and LeBron. While he is very good, he's simply not on their level at this point. Ron feels like he should be a #1 option, which if you comply with that notion like Adelman did, he'll be happy, but you most likely won't win a title. If you don't comply, as Musselman isn't, Ron turns into a cancer. I'd like to point out that there wasn't a peep out of Ron in terms of his happiness until Kevin Martin became the consistent #1 option.

                              The second problem with Ron is that his competitiveness is often problematic. If you start losing, he immediately thinks he's going to "take over" and help you back towards winning. This often tends to only make the matter worse, especially if he's not shooting well.


                              I still think hiring Musselman was a bad choice given that they've got Ron on their roster. Scott Skiles would also be a bad choice.

                              I think one day Ron Artest will win a title. However, he needs two things for that to happen: a total alpha dog player who he knows he's not better than, and a player-friendly coach that "understands" him.

                              Here's what I'd do. Have Minnesota trade something fair like 1 first and a decent player to Sacramento for Ron. Pair him up with Garnett, who is obviously more talented, doesn't play Ron's position, shares his homicidal drive to win, and won't take any of his crap. Bring in Rick Adelman to coach the team, because he's a proven winner, and already has a good rapport with Ron.

                              Why don't I have Kevin McHale's job again?
                              Cause Geoff Petrie's not an idiot and your plan wouldn't work.


                              Trust me, Martin's not the #1 option on the Kings. He should be, but usually Bibby and sometimes Artest take more shots. Considering Mike is battling a wrist injury and he's your PG-that's bad and it sets a tone for the whole team. The other problem is Muss likes seeing Artest take jumpers instead of putting him in the post. Ron only made 1 comment, to be honest I'm more worried about his back than this.

                              Who knows, maybe it's karma?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X