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

Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

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

  • #16
    Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

    Originally posted by Freddies


    That whole article is full of holes, if he's really an NBA writer he's an idiot.
    is there anybody ELSE that doesn't know that Jermaine,Tinsley and Freddie were all damaged goods against the pistons?? We dont' need to do ANYTHING to "keep pace". He's a moron.

    The Pistons were better and won't be getting worse any time soon. They leapfrogged us and never looked back midseason. Maybe some outside shooting from SJack will make a difference but the injury excuse isn't going to get it.

    And I've not heard ONE word of worry about Jermianes knee being ok.
    Welcome to the world of the Indiana Pacers and the Indpls Star. JO could have his lower leg amputated and the star would drop a line in some story about some 'concern' over JO's leg some weeks later... and finally let us all in on the secret several weeks after that... but only when the team gives the "OK". IOW, no news is neither good news or bad news in this regard.

    I'm not saying there's anything to the story's mention of JO's knee. I'm just saying don't discount it based on the Star's 'quiet'.

    -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


    • #17
      Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

      Originally posted by SoupIsGood
      BP, how are you sure about this stuff? Unless you have inside info, it seems kind of weird to say something has no chance at all of happening.

      Although I hope your right, I don't want Dampier.
      Yeah, I just like coming on here and throwing out random thoughts from time to time to see if anyone bites.
      [edit=27=1090547354][/edit]

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

        And regardless of who we got in return, there will always those who would feel there isn't anyone worth Ron short of a handful of superstars.
        Yeah, count me there. Who would you say is an equal trade? How many 2's and 3's are there that you'd trade Artest for? Not many in my book.

        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

          Originally posted by Anthem
          And regardless of who we got in return, there will always those who would feel there isn't anyone worth Ron short of a handful of superstars.
          Yeah, count me there. Who would you say is an equal trade? How many 2's and 3's are there that you'd trade Artest for? Not many in my book.
          I wouldn't disagree with you there, and thankfully that's not for you or I to decide. It could be one player or a combination of players. Either way, Ron won't be moved for just anyone.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

            I think that there is a possiabilty that Artest is traded.

            And if he is I hope we can get good players and/or dump Crosheres contract.

            What we need:

            - Small Forward
            If Artest is traded there would be a hole there. I know we have Stephen Jackson but I still think that we would need a SF.
            - Center
            We still could use an upgrade here.

            Possiable destinations for Artest:

            - Memphis
            They have reportedly had interest and can offer alot of diffrent combinations of swingmen and such.
            - Sacramento
            It would be swaping Artest for Peja which I would defentily be against but still is a possiabilty.
            - Phoenix
            Shawn Marion is reportedly on the block and they are unlikely to get QRich. They need a Center so maybe Artest/Pollard for Marion/? would be to there liking.
            - New Jersey
            Richard Jefferson may want traded and the new owners in NJ would like Artest. He is a good player, cheap, and cheap for seasons to come.
            - Los Angeles
            They may try and throw Caron Butler or Lamar Odom our way. But it would be a few mounths before they can be traded.

            This is just me speculating. These may or may not be possiabilties.
            [edit=145=1090550409][/edit]

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

              Paul Pierce??? Somebody get me a vomit sock. I haven't liked him since I saw him in the World Games. SInce we now have JAx do we really need PP's scoring? Wouldn't we be better with a scorer and rebounder? Do we really need another MAJOR option, one who needs the ball...alot?
              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

                This really disturbs me.

                If it was any other writer, I'd blow it off as nonsense. But, IMO, David Aldridge is far and away the best NBA reporter around. He's the only reporter ESPN has that's worth a hill of beans (except maybe John Clayton, but he can be a real ***.)

                At the party, we all just took it as fact that with Al traded, that meant Ron was here to stay. Frankly, I can't see us getting equal value at all, except for if we got Pierce (who I can't stand, but he's still damn good.)

                Plus, if JO's health was a question, I really can't see trading Al. Unless Bird thinks Cro can fill in, which I'm scared is true in his mind.

                Maybe I'm just paranoid. I'm debating on whether to re-up my tickets for next season, and the money's due 2 weeks from tomorrow. I'm terrified that right after I give them my money Larry's gonna swoop down and totally f#ck up this team.

                One more thing. If we are shopping Artest, than we aren't interested in Dampier. If we wanted him and this were true, Ron would be gone already.
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

                  Originally posted by Kegboy
                  This really disturbs me.

                  If it was any other writer, I'd blow it off as nonsense. But, IMO, David Aldridge is far and away the best NBA reporter around. He's the only reporter ESPN has that's worth a hill of beans (except maybe John Clayton, but he can be a real ***.)

                  At the party, we all just took it as fact that with Al traded, that meant Ron was here to stay. Frankly, I can't see us getting equal value at all, except for if we got Pierce (who I can't stand, but he's still damn good.)

                  Plus, if JO's health was a question, I really can't see trading Al. Unless Bird thinks Cro can fill in, which I'm scared is true in his mind.

                  Maybe I'm just paranoid. I'm debating on whether to re-up my tickets for next season, and the money's due 2 weeks from tomorrow. I'm terrified that right after I give them my money Larry's gonna swoop down and totally f#ck up this team.

                  One more thing. If we are shopping Artest, than we aren't interested in Dampier. If we wanted him and this were true, Ron would be gone already.
                  Well, he's wrong about Dampier. There has been no offer made for him, nor will there be one.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

                    I really really believe Dampier has a gimpy knee and the P's know it and are staying away completely. I remember it being mentioned slightly when he was a rook, and he's missed alot of games over the years.

                    Kegboy...spend the money, you'll be glad you did. Take it from a wise old geezer who made the mistke of giving up his seats too many years ago.
                    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

                      Originally posted by Kegboy
                      This really disturbs me.

                      If it was any other writer, I'd blow it off as nonsense. But, IMO, David Aldridge is far and away the best NBA reporter around. He's the only reporter ESPN has that's worth a hill of beans (except maybe John Clayton, but he can be a real ***.)
                      Wow, I was going to say the exact same thing!!! David Aldridge is a top notch reporter!

                      That said, I doubt we will make a bad deal for Ron, if in fact we do trade him.

                      I wish we would stop judging everything based on playoff performace... i.e. Austin's contract, Ron's potential trade, acquiring SJax...

                      The Pacers lost as a team, not only due to Ron Artest!!
                      Here, everyone have a : on me

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

                        There have been rumblings about behind the scene things with Ron this year. And lest we forget the near melt-down during the PO's. Unnecessary stupid fouls late in a winable game, missed practices and flights, missed exit interviews. Say what you will, I think there is a lot of Spin doctoring going on to cover-up for RA in order to keep his trade value high.
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

                          I don't see how we can ever get equal value for Ron. If we ever trade him we'll take a @ss beating, inless we include some bad contracts with him. I can't see us finding a player to trade for with his production that even remotely matches his salary.

                          Production per dollar, there may not be a better player in the league. Ron has a CHEAP contract and is locked up till 2008.

                          04-05 - 5,850,000
                          05-06 - 6,500,000
                          06-07 - 7,150,000
                          07-08 - 7,800,000
                          08-09 - 8,450,000
                          "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

                            Only a new draft pick such as Dwayne Wade, Lebron James, or Carmelo Anthony would do...
                            Here, everyone have a : on me

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

                              The fact that this is an Aldridge article nonwithstanding, I still think this article is hogwash. LB is no fool and knows how valuable Artest is to this team. Danny Ainge has said repeatedly that he has absolutely no intentions of trading Paul Pierce, Shawn Marion < Artest, Vince Carter isn't coming (that's a good thing btw) to Indiana, etc . The best explanation I've heard so far is that Artest was on the block for the T-Mac rumors but has been off ever since and that's what I would stick with. Larry, Donnie, and Rick know this team needs only a few tweaks (Jax) to reload for next year though I'm not sure we'll win quite as many games without a starting-quality PF like Harrington coming off the bench, it'll benefit us in the long run. Plus, the window of opportunity for this group (everybody except Reggie really) is bigger than any other serious contender right now. With that said, I think we stick with Ron until his contract is up and see what happens from there. And yes, since this was a relatively long post (to my standards) this calls for the rockin' signature

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Aldridge thinks Artest will be traded

                                Originally posted by canyoufeelit
                                With that said, I think we stick with Ron until his contract is up and see what happens from there.
                                I will be incredibly surprised if Ron is here past mid-season.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X