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

Zach Randolph for Michael Redd in the works?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Zach Randolph for Michael Redd in the works?

    http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/ore...5341459060.xml

    Faith on the fade
    Tuesday, August 31, 2004
    JASON QUICK
    MARION, Ind. -- There used to be believers in this town, back in the day, back when Zach Randolph was just a kid.

    In every direction there was either a flourishing cornfield or a prospering factory. Of the nine paper plate factories in the nation, five of them were in Marion. There also were plants that manufactured television picture tubes, bottles, cardboard boxes and automobile parts.

    And the basketball team . . . oh, those Marion Giants. Seven state titles -- just one off the state record held by nearby Muncie Central -- not to mention so many other near-misses, such as the year Broadripple made a length-of-the-court shot at the buzzer to stun the favored Giants.

    No state takes its high school basketball as seriously as Indiana, and no town takes it as seriously as Marion (pop. 31,000), perhaps to a fault, some residents say. Every year, there was a new can't-miss star, often anointed by media members as early as the fifth grade, who finally would don the purple and gold and give the basketball crazies (they are everywhere here) something to talk about.

    It was last like this in 2000, when a once clumsy and awkward kid named Zach Randolph grew into his body, all 6-foot-9 of it, and led the Giants to state title number seven.

    Now, everything has changed. There is little, if anything, to believe in -- even as the Chamber of Commerce attempts to boost morale with a "We Believe in Marion" slogan splashed all around town.

    One by one, the factories started to close, until now, only the General Motors plant remains. It has led to a 17.6 percent unemployment rate, second-highest in Indiana and more than three times the national average.

    And year by year, there seems to be another shady incident involving Randolph, their most heralded basketball star, seemingly adding insult to injury.

    The latest is a possible criminal charge against Randolph for lying to police after, witnesses say, his younger brother, Roger, shot three men around 2:30 a.m. on Aug. 22 in a nightclub in nearby Anderson, Ind.

    Randolph, who witnesses say tried to restrain Roger while he was shooting into the crowd, then led him out of the nightclub, has told police three times he knew nothing of the incident. He will have a fourth chance Wednesday, when Randolph and his attorney meet with Madison County prosecutor Rodney Cummings.

    "I'm expecting cooperation," Cummings said. "He needs to tell what he saw."

    If Randolph again denies seeing anything, Cummings said he will pursue charges immediately. Cummings said he will either charge Randolph with giving false information to the police, a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by as much as one year in prison, or with assisting a criminal, a Class D felony, punishable by as much as three years in prison.

    Randolph and his family declined to be interviewed for this story.

    The people in Marion want to believe in Randolph. They believe in his heart, the one that has donated time and money to local kids programs. They believe in his spirit, the one that smiles with ease and thirsts for loving attention. And they believe in his determination, the one that worked to avenge the "experts" who touted other youths while he clumsily tried to adjust to his growing body. And the one who diligently worked on his troubling grades in order to stay on track for his goal of reaching the NBA.

    But then again, how long does one believe? Their faith in the economy, believing that the next factory surely couldn't close, has gotten them here, investing their hopes in a billboard slogan.

    And for as much as they believe in Randolph's heart, spirit and determination, they don't believe in his mind. They remember 1999, when during a glorious start to the season that had the town talking title, Randolph was kicked off the team after being convicted of selling and possessing stolen guns.

    Two years earlier, he served 30 days house arrest for a battery conviction. And in 1995, he served 30 days in juvenile detention for shoplifting a pair of pants.

    Some say that at 23, he has yet to mature. Others say he simply is naive. However, they all agree on this: The downfall of Zach Randolph is the crowd with which he chooses to associate.

    "He needs to say 'I need help,' but he's not aware he has a problem," said Moe Smedley, Randolph's high school coach, who often picked up Randolph at home. "And the problem is he is hanging with the wrong people. I just don't want the day to come where I pick up that paper and it says he shot someone, or that he was shot. Every day that goes by that I don't see that, I feel good."

    Headed to Milwaukee?

    Two-thousand miles west, in Portland, the Trail Blazers organization also is struggling to believe.

    After watching Randolph steadily progress in his first three seasons -- including last season, when he averaged 20.1 points and 10.5 rebounds, earning him the NBA's Most Improved Player award -- the Blazers believe in Randolph's talent.

    But the franchise is embarking on year two of its self-proclaimed "New Era," which included a much-publicized 25-point pledge to its fans that trumpeted a philosophy of valuing character over talent.

    Randolph, clearly the most talented and promising player on the team, is in the last year of his contract, which is set to pay him $1.8 million this season. The Blazers have until Oct. 31 to offer an extension, which one month ago seemed like a sure bet.

    But today, the Blazers have cooled considerably, to the point where their once-believed foundation of the future now is rumored in a trade sending Randolph, Derek Anderson and a 2005 draft pick to Milwaukee for Michael Redd, Desmond Mason and Marcus Haislip.

    Even though Zach Randolph didn't pull the trigger in the Anderson night club, the incident comes on the heels of his juvenile record in Marion and a tenure with the Blazers that includes a driving under the influence of intoxicants (marijuana) charge last December by Portland police, a conviction for underage drinking in Marion in 2002, and a two-game suspension in April 2003 by the team after he sucker-punched teammate Ruben Patterson, breaking Patterson's eye socket, during a practice.

    General manager John Nash, who at one point this summer said he would like to sign Randolph to an extension, said last week that Randolph's involvement in the Anderson shooting didn't "sit well with what we are trying to achieve and accomplish in Portland."

    But in the same breath, Nash can't escape his attachment to Randolph.

    "I love the player and his ability, and I like the individual, because I truly believe he has a good heart," Nash said.

    Now the question is, which Randolph do the Blazers believe in?

    Not "a bad bone in him"

    It was an awkward childhood for Randolph, who was diagnosed with ADD/HD, attention deficit disorder/hyperactive disorder. Coupled with an impoverished background -- his single mother, Mae, raised her four children on welfare -- and the racial overtones of a mostly white blue-collar community, Randolph was somewhat of an outcast, endearing him to a misfit collection of friends.

    Soon, however, it became apparent that Randolph could play basketball, and by the fourth grade he was popular, winning kids over with his playfulness, and charming the teachers he tested with his smile and innocence.

    "I liked him very, very much," said Laurie Kocher, his fourth-grade teacher. "I think he has a wonderful heart."

    But that heart was hurt when his peers were given attention for their basketball skills, while he was criticized for his borderline grades and the rowdy crowd with which he associated.

    "So many people put him down," Kocher said. "But he never stopped practicing."

    His grade school teachers remarked how well he was raised by his mother, who always had her kids neatly groomed and respectful of authority. When Kocher said she was having a hard time keeping Randolph in line, Mae told her that she would threaten to take basketball away from Zach.

    "And boy, did that kid get on the ball," Kocher said. "Mae was a wonderful, driving force for him."

    But his friends, that was another story.

    "I think he purposely chose bad friends," Kocher said. "He has always just loved living on the edge, he liked that excitement."

    By 14, Randolph was caught stealing a pair of pants while he was with friends.

    "I don't think the kid has a bad bone in him," said Jenny Maidenberg, his second-grade teacher. "But I think he may be too trusting. I don't think Zach thinks anyone is going to do something bad."

    A struggling brother

    At the center of Randolph's crowd is his brother, Roger, younger by one year.

    There are some in Marion who say that Roger, a 6-foot-5 guard, was more talented than Zach in basketball. But there is no debate that Roger took a wrong turn growing up, starting around seventh grade.

    "He really turned bad," Kocher said.

    By high school, Roger was kicked off the basketball team, and his mother sent him to a boarding school in Pennsylvania. As Zach flourished in basketball, some theorize that Roger's inborn anger intensified out of jealousy.

    "I think Zach tries to make it up to him now," Kocher said. "Whenever Zach comes back to town, he makes sure he takes Roger around."

    That scenario turned ugly Aug. 22 when, police say, Roger opened fire on the dance floor of the notorious Sinbad's nightclub in Anderson. Cummings said that 15 to 20 murders have taken place over the years at the nightclub.

    "Only bad things happen at that place," Cummings said. "The only thing that happens in that place is people get shot."

    Three weeks before the shooting, on Aug. 1, Roger was arrested by Marion police after a routine traffic stop revealed he was carrying a handgun without a permit, in addition to possessing marijuana.

    "He's a criminal," Smedley said. "But Zach is still running with Roger. Why? If Roger is put away, that will help Zach in a big way."

    "Why would he screw it up?"

    What hurts the people of Marion the most is that Randolph has been surrounded by strong role models -- Smedley, Michigan State coach Tom Izzo, Blazers coach Maurice Cheeks -- and responded to their guidance, only to step out of line.

    "I just think he hangs with the wrong people," said Izzo, who coached Randolph for one season. "But I think one thing we do, maybe to a fault, is we are always telling these kids, 'Don't forget where you came from.' Well, that can be a problem when you come from a little rougher neighborhood. But for the most part, with Zach, if there is a fault, it is that he follows more than he leads."

    Cheeks is trying to reverse that trend. He says he believes in Randolph, so much so that he wants him to become a leader on the Blazers, a point he made in a call shortly after the Aug. 22 shooting.

    "I told him that being a leader means people look up to you," Cheeks said. "I told him you can't be getting caught up in this and that, it's just not acceptable. He has to be careful, with the things he does, the people he hangs with. . . . I mean, he doesn't have to shun his friends, but he can say, 'Look, I have something to lose here,' then keep moving on. Because if he continues along this path, then something is going to happen . . . it could be him."

    And that would be a tragedy, the one that almost seems befitting of Marion -- a town that once had it all, but is on the verge of being left with nothing.

    "He has worked so hard to get where he is at," Smedley said. "Why would he screw it up at some bar on a Saturday night in Indiana? And that's what bothers me, he has seen the right way to do things."

    "I just feel so sad," said Kocher, the fourth-grade teacher. "I just don't think he is mature yet, he is still making bad decisions, not thinking ahead. He is not a bad kid, he just loves his brother and is caught in the middle of it all."

    And that leaves two sides -- Marion and the Blazers -- wanting to believe, waiting to believe that Randolph is worth it.

    "I look at him and I see what people see," Izzo said. "You want to love the guy, but you have questions about him."

    Jason Quick: 503-221-4372; jasonquick@news.oregonian.com


    [edit=97=1093981449][/edit]
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Zach Randolph for Michael Redd in the works?

    I hope he grows out of this knuckle-head phase before it is too late... Sad!
    ...Still "flying casual"
    @roaminggnome74

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Zach Randolph for Michael Redd in the works?

      If I were Portland I'd jump on that quick.
      "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

      "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Zach Randolph for Michael Redd in the works?

        It's his brother, sometimes family is most important. Tough spot to be in. I suppose all of you would be the first to turn your mom in for a hit and run or whatever

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Zach Randolph for Michael Redd in the works?

          I don't think Zach's a horrible person. I do think that he is a risk and a distraction to the franchise. Add to that that he is in Portland where the fans are fed up with misbehaving players I absolutly would trade him for an All Star.
          "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

          "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Zach Randolph for Michael Redd in the works?

            im a bit surprised how everyone is jumping all over zach for this....
            he grew up in a tough situation, where family is sometimes all you can trust and depend on...

            id lie to the cops to protect my brother too...
            i respect that he's looking out for his brother

            i dont think portland would trade a big just coming into his own as a player for a great SG

            it'd be much harder to replace zach than find someone to fill the SG position...

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Zach Randolph for Michael Redd in the works?

              Well... if Redd is up for the taking, and they are willing to recieve a problem child in return, and the pacers are intent on trading Ronnie away, this would be an almost perfect fit.

              Redd would by far be the best he pacers could hope to get for ron. I say we bring redd here and sign him to a big fat DW-style extension.
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Zach Randolph for Michael Redd in the works?

                I'd like to find out what the Bucks are smokin', and mail some to the Sonics' front office along with Polly for Ray Allen.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Zach Randolph for Michael Redd in the works?

                  Interesting... Portland would start to balance out with that trade. Their frontcourt could make sense, and their backcourt would get a serious shot in the arm with Redd.

                  Anything that puts Redd out west is fine by me.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Zach Randolph for Michael Redd in the works?

                    NO! Don't send Haslip to Portland...I get to talk to him several times a month at my job...cool down to earth guy.

                    Comment

                    Previous template Next
                    Working...
                    X