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

Shaquille O'Neal buys a stake in the Sacramento Kings

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

  • Shaquille O'Neal buys a stake in the Sacramento Kings

    If I were a Kings fan I would be pissed about this considering past history

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...oneal/2854021/

    Shaquille O'Neal buys a stake in the Sacramento Kings


    Shaquille O'Neal will take on minority ownership of Sacramento Kings with new group
    Kings are trying to make over their image after sale from Maloofs, and TNT analyst can lead
    O'Neal had a rivalry with the Kings when he was with the Lakers, calling them "Queens"

    Shaquille O'Neal — "Dr. O'Neal," if you ask him — is hoping to help cure the Sacramento Kings.

    As the Kings continue their image makeover that was sparked by the late May sale of the team to Vivek Ranadive, they have made a big and bold move by adding O'Neal as a minority owner. The TNT analyst once gleaned pleasure in deriding the Kings, whom he owned in a very different way when his Lakers thrice knocked their rival out of the playoffs en route to titles in 2000, 2001 and 2002. Now his joy will come from seeing one of the league's worst-performing franchises turn things around.

    His involvement will begin in earnest today, as O'Neal — who jokingly referred to himself as "Dr. O'Neal" throughout a phone interview with USA TODAY Sports — plans to meet with Kings players and coaches in Sacramento before having dinner with franchise centerpiece and new protégé DeMarcus Cousins.

    "What interested me in this deal is the new vision, the new Kings, the new everything," said O'Neal, who so famously deemed the Kings the "Queens" at the start of the 2002-03 season. "I've always wanted to be part of something like this. ... It's going to be great."

    The timing couldn't be better for the Kings, who took exception to ESPN's recent franchise rankings that pegged them last among 122 organizations in the NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB. The analysis was based on the team's woeful recent history and lackluster fan support, as the Kings not only missed the playoffs in seven consecutive seasons under the Maloof family that owned them previously but were on the edge of relocation to Anaheim and Seattle before Ranadive bought the team to keep it in town.

    The new regime, which is headed by the Silicon Valley software tycoon in Ranadive and also includes 24-Hour Fitness founder Mark Mastrov, is determined to change perceptions and has even crafted a marketing campaign aimed at dispelling the unwelcome ESPN distinction.

    "Hey ESPN ... Nice Airball," one of their promotional posters for a Nov. 15 home game that will be aired by ESPN reads. "New era. New swagger. The best fans await you."

    Of the unflattering attention, Ranadive told USA TODAY Sports: "We are No. 1 in new ticket sales; we're probably No. 1 in sponsorships. We have a whole list of No. 1s we can tell you about. We've sold more tickets than all of the other teams, so that speaks for itself. ... They did their study based on last year, and who wants to read yesterday's newspaper?"

    True to form, O'Neal — who so accurately describes himself as "very quotatious" on his Twitter profile — was quick with the fearless sound bite as he discussed his new endeavor.

    "Worst is at the bottom, which means you can't get no worser," he said of the Kings' ranking. "There's no such thing as worser, which means we can only get better. And we will get better. Once that new arena comes, once that new downtown is up, once we have a conversation with the players and get everybody to step up, they'll be knocking on the door.

    "Hopefully Vivek, with Mr. Mastrov and myself and the team and organization can get it back to where it used to be. I'm telling you these new plans, oh my. You're going to be like, 'Sacramento is doing what?' That's what we want people to say."


    "Here we stay" became the unofficial motto of Sacramento's push to keep the Kings. The NBA rejected a deal to move the team to Seattle, leading the Maloof family to come to terms on one with a Sacramento group. Flip through this gallery for more shots of fans. Kelley L Cox, USA TODAY Sports Fullscreen

    Next Slide
    O'Neal is hardly the first high-profile addition to an NBA team's ownership group. Michael Jordan, who is now the majority owner of the Charlotte Bobcats, became a minority owner of the Washington Wizards in 2000 before he had to divest his interest a year later because he returned to the court. Music mogul Jay Z was a minority owner of the Brooklyn Nets before divesting his interest in order to become a sports agent in mid-April, and part of his share was bought by former Nets point guard Jason Kidd, who is now the team's head coach.

    Singer Justin Timberlake and NFL quarterback Peyton Manning became minority owners of the Memphis Grizzlies last October, while Magic Johnson was a part owner of the Lakers before selling his share in 2011 and later becoming part owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Former Kings star Mitch Richmond also is a minority owner in the current Kings group.

    Odd as this partnership might seem, it was the friendship between O'Neal and Mastrov that led to the pairing. O'Neal was a regular at Mastrov's gyms during his playing days in Los Angeles, when he was awed by the concept of a gym that never closed.

    "Think about it – a 24-hour place where you can go and work out?" he thought at the time. "I would've never thought of that."

    Yet when O'Neal was traded to the Heat in 2004, there were no 24-Hour Fitness clubs to be found. The two went to work changing the fitness landscape.

    "We built a lot of 24 Hour Fitnesses in the Miami, South Florida area," O'Neal said. "So when Mark introduced me to Vivek, we had a wonderful conversation. I've always prided myself by interacting with great leaders and great businessmen."

    When O'Neal, Ranadive and Mastrov met for dinner in Silicon Valley in late June, it appeared the focus of O'Neal's Kings-related efforts would be mentoring Cousins in a consultant-type role. He even vowed at the time to help turn Cousins into "the best big man in the game." Yet the O'Neal appeal, apparently, went way beyond his ability to help their young player.

    According to a March 13 report in Car and Driver magazine, O'Neal is — according to Q Score president Steve Levitt, still far more recognizable to young American adult males than the average celebrity (70% to 29%). According to Twitaholic, O'Neal —who was one of the first celebrities to begin using Twitter in 2008 — has the fifth-biggest following on the social media platform among current or former athletes. At 7.5 million, he trails soccer players Cristiano Ronaldo (21.3 million), Kaka (16.7 million) and Neymar Junior (8.4 million), while also coming in behind LeBron James (9.7 million).

    Shaq's larger-than-life profile, in other words, is alive and well. And for a small-market organization that certainly lacks buzz, it's quite a boon.

    "I wanted to find somebody to add to the ownership group who truly represented 21st century basketball, who represented my vision of NBA 3.0, which is having an understanding of technology, wanting to build a global brand and being global in their thinking, and really being committed to having an impact in the community," Ranadive, the former Golden State Warriors minority owner who heads the group that bought the team for a league-record valuation of $535 million, told USA TODAY Sports. "The most iconic person on the planet was Dr. O'Neal. So Mark Mastrov is good friends with Dr. O'Neal, and Dr. O'Neal and I spent a day at my house shooting hoops, hanging out with my kids, and just talking about how to create the franchise of the 21st century.

    "We talked about what the forces were that were shaping the 21st century, we talked about technology, we talked about new companies that we were looking at, and based on that we came to a conclusion that we could — what my (late) friend Steve Jobs likes to say — put a dent in the universe if Dr. O'Neal became my partner."

    The vision that has O'Neal so enthused includes a new, $448 million arena that they hope will spark a downtown revival in Sacramento and is expected to be completed in 2016. And while an anti-arena group is continuing to gather signatures with the hopes of forcing an arena vote on the June ballot because of the $258 million public subsidy, O'Neal and his new co-workers remain confident their plans will be put in place. The Kings have played in Arco Arena since 1988, and — per Ranadive's agreement to buy the team — must have the new building in place by 2017 or the NBA can seize ownership and facilitate new ownership, likely in a new city.

    O'Neal, always the creative pitchman, already is inspired by the project.

    "I've seen the (arena) plans," O'Neal said. "I don't know if they've talked to you about the plans, but woo-wee. That's all I can say: woo-wee. Oh, you know what? That's our new slogan: 'Sacramento: woo-wee.'

    "It's going to be sort of like a mini L.A. Live, and it's going to be great for Sacramento, especially when they build the arena. ... If we put our heads together and hire the right people, I know that this arena is going to be the best arena in the country."

    O'Neal knows that some Kings fans may be reluctant to accept him, what with their sorted past and all, but is ready to start his fascinating new experience nonetheless.

    "(The Lakers and Kings) did have some great battles, and fans need to understand that those ('Sacramento Queens') comments that I made and all that stuff, it was for them," he said. "I've always been an expert at marketing, so a Laker-vs. Sacramento Kings, I wanted it to be the most watched game ever.

    "But right now, (the Kings are) down, and they have new ownership, and we're going to bring it back up. It's going to be beautiful. It's going to be a destination place that people want to see."

  • #2
    Re: Shaquille O'Neal buys a stake in the Sacramento Kings

    It does seem strange, but at the same time its kinda cool. Wonder if the Big Cactus will be at some games. Would be cool to meet Shaq

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Shaquille O'Neal buys a stake in the Sacramento Kings

      It would be for me as if Michael Jordan owned a share of the Pacers....

      I'm bracing myself for the "Shaqramento Kings" puns

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Shaquille O'Neal buys a stake in the Sacramento Kings

        I wonder if he now plans to seriously take DeMarcus under his wing? I think that is one man Cousins would listen to...
        Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Shaquille O'Neal buys a stake in the Sacramento Kings

          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
          I'm bracing myself for the "Shaqramento Kings" puns
          Well that didn't take long...

          http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/97...cramento-kings

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Shaquille O'Neal buys a stake in the Sacramento Kings

            Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
            It would be for me as if Michael Jordan owned a share of the Pacers....
            More like Spike Lee...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Shaquille O'Neal buys a stake in the Sacramento Kings

              He owned them for years....


              @Coupe460

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Shaquille O'Neal buys a stake in the Sacramento Kings

                Originally posted by Shade View Post
                More like Spike Lee...
                *shudder*

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Shaquille O'Neal buys a stake in the Sacramento Kings

                  Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                  I'm bracing myself for the "Shaqramento Kings" puns
                  As I flew in to Sacramento last night, the pilot said "Welcome to Shaqramento" over the PA. Ugh.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X