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 documentary

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

  • Ron artest documentary

    Has anyone seen the Ron artest documentary I believe on showtime? I was listening to a podcast and they were talking about it and especially the brawl and apparently Ron was so insane that after the fight in the locker room our coach was crying saying that the guys had given the sport a black eye and ruined their legacy and rom apparently was like “so you think we will get in trouble”? And supposedly either jermaine O’Neal or Stephen Jackson was like “we prob have no jobs you idiot” and they all started fighting one another in the locker room. On the podcast they said O’Neil and attest despised one another and wouldn’t talk during practice. Has anyone ever heard of this before?? I sure hadn’t.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Reggieslegkick View Post
    Has anyone seen the Ron artest documentary I believe on showtime? I was listening to a podcast and they were talking about it and especially the brawl and apparently Ron was so insane that after the fight in the locker room our coach was crying saying that the guys had given the sport a black eye and ruined their legacy and rom apparently was like �so you think we will get in trouble�? And supposedly either jermaine O�Neal or Stephen Jackson was like �we prob have no jobs you idiot� and they all started fighting one another in the locker room. On the podcast they said O�Neil and attest despised one another and wouldn�t talk during practice. Has anyone ever heard of this before?? I sure hadn�t.
    Yeah, I remember hearing the part about the question before from Stephen Jackson on a show.


    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

    Comment


    • #3
      If someone finds the documentary on Youtube sometime, I'd love to have a link.
      Check out my autographed 1972-73 Topps basketball project

      Comment


      • #4
        It's on SHO on demand. Very, very good docu. What I gathered as a Pacers fan, some of which I already knew, some of which I didn't:

        * Almost everyone has some degree of regret, clarity or wish to do things differently. Except John Green. That dude is still a jerk and tried to play the alcoholic card while also being baffled at how an assault charge could be leveled against him. F John Green.

        * The main feeling from Pacers is, unsurprisingly, disappointment and sadness that they had Ron's back and he just noped outta here. He said (and I hadn't heard this before) the pressure of playing for Indiana was too great after that night, because of the association with him and Indiana.

        * This was also before Ron was getting any help for his mental health whatsoever, from what I could tell. Which kinda seems like a miss on Pacers' management if true.
        * Stephen Jackson thought Ron was a "crazy MF", which says everything.

        * JO just recently started talking to Ron. Wasn't happy for him when he won a title. Basically: JO (unsurprisingly) comes off as the best Pacer here. He seemed genuinely heartbroken about what happened to the franchise, and pissed at Ron for bailing so nonchalantly. JO seemed particularly heartbroken for Reggie.

        * There was almost a fight in the Pacers locker room after the brawl, kinda coaches vs players, that I hadn't heard about before. 99 percent sure JO stopped it before it popped off.

        * Everything about this docu reinforces (even if not verbally or in point of the story) what a joke it is that Detroit got off so lightly for the brawl. To JO's point: Ben Wallace was throwing like a billion things and the crowd started following suit. Basically everyone concedes that Ron was a moron for fouling Ben like he did late, and someone (SJax I think?) even says it was dumb Ron was even in the game at that point. But watching it unfold again just reinforced how utterly unfair the punishments were. I have no problem with Ron getting suspended for the year, though I think JO/SJax punishments were too harsh (especially JO). There is an argument crowds were actually incentivized to incite violence from players, though, given the utter lack of any consequence for the Pistons fans.

        Comment


        • #5
          I dont blame JO for hating that Artest got a ring, I hate it. Artest stole a title from Indiana. Ben Wallace helped and should have been punished more but the bottom line is that Artest went into the crowd and then left after the Pacers backed him up.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks guys for explaining the history to me. I had no idea how deep that incident affected everyone. I still think we would of won a championship that year had the brawl never taken place. I will def have to find a way to check it out so I can see it all for myself. Btw who was the John green guy? Was he a player or one of the fans that instigated the fight? Thanks again for all the replies and info

            Comment


            • #7
              Btw random question. Does this site give out usernames by itself? Like does it generate random ones. The reason I ask lol is I cannot for the life of me remember coming up with my username. I’m not that creative. I would of picked something vanilla like pacerfan. It’s been awhile since I signed up so I cannot remember how I got my username lol.

              Comment


              • #8
                Well I just got done watching it.

                Just exactly like right after the brawl I believe that I differ from most pacers fans regarding the incident then and still do.

                Watching this only reinforced my opinion of that team and how the management of that team handled them. The only thing I learned new from this documentary and now feel somewhat sorry for him is the Jermaine O'Neal had been begging the Pacers to trade Ron since the season before because he knew there were issues. Believe me, he had his own problems here but in this case he was in the right.

                It is rare that we do get to have interviews with someone who is responsible for an issue and have them admit it, but by God we did in this one. Who is that you might ask? Did Ron finally admit to culpability? No he did that right away, he is who he is. Was it Stephen Jackson telling us we all ride together? Nope, knew him as well.

                We finally have on tape for the whole world to see and hear Donnie Walsh admitting that they were concerned well before the brawl that Ron was going to do something that would force the league to take action. He spoke on all of the issues and concerns that he should have dealt with way before Ron forced his hand by demanding a trade. The fact that he stated that Jermaine O'Neal was not going to dictate to him who he was and wasn't going to trade should be every bit of the issue that Bird saying Paul George doesn't run the team. Yet people are fast to throw Larry under the bus for that statement but yet the proud Walsh Warriors will let that statement go by and even make excuses for him.

                It took me years to wash the stink of that team off of me. If you followed that star message board in that time you know I could not stand that team and watching this doc just reinforces everything about it.



                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ron laid on the scorer's table and specifically started doing breathing exercises he'd learned through therapy. then it all popped off. watch it again, it's real obvious.

                  he was absolutely undergoing the infancy stages of his treatment here. this comes directly from the doc's director's mouth on Bomani Jones podcast.

                  and no, that team never would have won a title. JO and Artest woulda ended it themselves if a drunk idiot didn't get in the way so early.
                  Last edited by Heisenberg; 06-16-2019, 11:48 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                    Ron laid on the scorer's table and specifically started doing breathing exercises he'd learned through therapy. then it all popped off. watch it again, it's real obvious.

                    he was absolutely undergoing the infancy stages of his treatment here. this comes directly from the doc's director's mouth on Bomani Jones podcast.

                    and no, that team never would have won a title. JO and Artest woulda ended it themselves if a drunk idiot didn't get in the way so early.
                    Agree to disagree about them winning a title...I still think that team was one of the better Pacers teams in the 2000's. In fact, that was one of my favorite teams.


                    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      But seriously can we talk about what an *** John Green is? Makes it sting even more that Artest buddied up to him after the fact...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
                        But seriously can we talk about what an *** John Green is? Makes it sting even more that Artest buddied up to him after the fact...
                        Strong agree. Just got finished washing. Everyone but him feels responsibility for that night. he just made excuses.


                        Carmel HS Class of 2011

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Any talk of what the Pacers did behind the scenes to lessen the damage/punishments handed out by the NBA?

                          I always felt the Pacers played their public hand rather poorly because they didn't do anything of note, at least in the open, to defend the team and the unbalanced handling of the NBA as far as what Detroit got versus the Pacers.

                          I thought some of the PR hit, let alone the hit on the on the court product, could've been mitigated if played correctly. Especially, in light of how easily Detroit got off.
                          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


                          • #14
                            This just reinforces my appreciation for JO. He felt betrayed and now that we know how “off” Ron Ron was, I hope people will view him differently. I remember during the season before that people (mainly those on the old Star forum) thought JO was being petty, that he was jealous, and that he was the problem and not Ron. If I, as a fan, felt betrayed after the trade request the following season, I can only imagine how he must’ve felt. In many ways he damaged JO’s reputation and career.

                            I’m not surprised Donnie ignored JO and all the other red flags. He once said in an interview after having to trade Ron that he made a mistake in keeping him too long because he and Larry fell in love with talent. We as fans did as well. Many of us covered over all his craziness and laughed at his antics.

                            The league should’ve forced the Pistons to play the other home game against the Pacers in an empty arena or in Indiana. I believe that knowing Ron would be back the following year and how the league did nothing to punish the Pistons fans was what led Reggie to announce in the middle of the season that he was going to retire at the end of the season.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              It took me years to wash the stink of that team off of me. If you followed that star message board in that time you know I could not stand that team and watching this doc just reinforces everything about it.
                              PD was open close to a year by then, if you want to read what was said, start here; https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...acers/page3838

                              as far as Walsh goes, he let Larry convince him to keep that idiot, I understand he blames himself and takes responsibility, but he never went on the front page of SI with the idiot

                              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                              If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                              Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X