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

Bring Ron-Ron back ??

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

  • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

    Originally posted by quinnthology View Post
    Casuals fans blow off the team because the team isn't winning. This is a basic principle of sports called fair-weather fans, the Pacers are no different. If the team was winning, the team would be supported by its fair-weather fans. And for the hardcore fans, well that's their own problem. It's our responsibility to support the team no matter who plays on the team, hence why almost everybody has Hansbrough on their avatar despite how much he blows.

    The idea that this year was a huge step in the right direction is foolish. The only positive part of this year is that Danny continued to explode. Without him, we would be absolute garbage no matter how "clean" Bird made our locker room.

    If the Pacers make the playoffs, the casual fans will come back simply because they made the playoffs, not because they're a clean team. The late 80s Pistons didn't have a huge fanbase because they were good people, they had one because they were a blast to watch and because they won. Ron is a blast to watch, and putting a seasoned vet who has a burning desire to play the game next to Granger would help him grow, and help our team win. Period.
    I like talking to a wall better. At least it doesn't call my thoughts foolish. Similar amount of listening, though.

    Comment


    • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

      Sorry that everyone doesn't agree with you all the time buddy

      Comment


      • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

        Originally posted by quinnthology View Post
        Sorry that everyone doesn't agree with you all the time buddy
        You ignored half of what I said, and essentially agreed with what you didn't ignore. We agree that winning will win back casual fans.

        Comment


        • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          So we're debating which cancer was the worst among a team full of cancers? Does it matter?

          There was no way that JO could co-exist with anyone so how could anybody think he could co-exist with Ron Artest? There was simply no way that a player like Artest would take a backseat to an overpaid, lazy, prima donna like JO. Nobody respected JO... except JO. So you have some with the argument it was inevitable Artest would implode no matter who was around him, and then you follow that with JO not accepting any challenges to his 'domination', and what did we expect???

          Then mix in a PG with questionable priorities and decision making skills both on and off the court.

          Add a SG who had no problem looking the part of an *** on the court (regardless of how he performed in practice or showed up for every game... injured or not)

          Now throw in an enabling front office who needed to see a building totally engulfed in flames before bothering to even get out a fire extinguisher.

          And Naptown is right in that simply removing Artest wasn't enough. He might've quacked loudly but he wasn't the biggest duck in the pond.

          What's really amazing to me is how far from all that we've come, but it took jettisoning Walsh to really get anything accomplished.
          Exactly. And I'm a Walsh fan. I'm not even really blaming him, I just think things added up and that with 2 guys in charge it didn't work well and kept them from having a plan.

          I like Jack. I sort of like Ron. I defended JO and feel let down by him. I defended Tinsley and feel really betrayed by him. I think Al was a royal jerk and I'm not all that fond of AJ and the bombs he lobbed back at the Pacers.

          2 guys from the bad bunch actually showed Rick some respect, but both get blasted for not doing so because they so openly didn't at first. That's Jack and Ron. But to me those have been the 2 guys in the long run that were willing to say "well maybe I should have followed him better". Frankly Jackson made a habit of losing it and then feeling bad about it.

          I get that people don't want to see that, but better that than the players that actually didn't respect the coach or the team.

          Ron and Jack respected the coach and team...they just weren't very good at it. Some of the other players appear to have been slick up front but deep down couldn't care less.

          See Peja as public enemy #1 on that front.



          I'd have Ron back because I think people do mature. Reggie sure as hell stopped being the guy he was in 91 or 94. Cripes, dude showed the choke sign to a FAN and during the game. Dude bowed. Stood on the scorers table. In all ways he was a brash ahole.

          And then Jax went around with his shimmy.

          But if you jettisoned those guys for that stuff you wouldn't have been around to see them in 2000. Reggie in his final seasons did not carry himself the same as he did in 90.

          Guys mature, even the outlandish and the nutjobs. What's going to happen is a bunch of people are running scared of the water because their was once a shark attack. There hasn't been one since basically he asked for the trade.

          His rep and someone not caring for his dog kept it going in Sacto.


          I would visit Ron, have him come in, feel out the TEAM. And if those steps said green light to me then I'd sign him and let the fans see what I already would know to be true, that he was going to do just fine.

          And if I brought him in and got those skittish vibes I'd step away from the table and be done with him. I'm not proposing selling the team's soul, I'm saying that it's wrong to see Ron as some absolute. I'm sick of this "its just a matter of time" thing. When? How long do you have to wait? Forever?

          If the dude never acts up again in a disruptive way (ie, shaved head stuff doesn't count) then it means he WAS NOT A TIME BOMB.

          I might as well say we need to trade Danny because it's only a matter of time before he stabs someone, you'll see. Ron MIGHT be the same, but it's looking more and more like he's not.

          I trust Bird to know if this is true if he meets him face to face. I think it would be smart to find out just where Ron is at right now rather than cutting our nose off to spite our face.



          PS - as I already said, if you sign Ron then part of that contract has in big letters "you damn sure better start with a huge apology to Larry and the fans for betraying their faith and that it was the roster rather than the team that drove him out".

          I'm not supporting unconditional love. I'm opposing unconditional hatred.
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-02-2009, 06:53 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            I might as well say we need to trade Danny because it's only a matter of time before he stabs someone, you'll see. .
            OH YEAH WE GOT TYLER HANSBROUGH!!!! WAIT A MINUTE....IM A DUKE FAN

            Comment


            • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Exactly. And I'm a Walsh fan. I'm not even really blaming him, I just think things added up and that with 2 guys in charge it didn't work well and kept them from having a plan.

              I like Jack. I sort of like Ron. I defended JO and feel let down by him. I defended Tinsley and feel really betrayed by him. I think Al was a royal jerk and I'm not all that fond of AJ and the bombs he lobbed back at the Pacers.

              2 guys from the bad bunch actually showed Rick some respect, but both get blasted for not doing so because they so openly didn't at first. That's Jack and Ron. But to me those have been the 2 guys in the long run that were willing to say "well maybe I should have followed him better". Frankly Jackson made a habit of losing it and then feeling bad about it.

              I get that people don't want to see that, but better that than the players that actually didn't respect the coach or the team.

              Ron and Jack respected the coach and team...they just weren't very good at it. Some of the other players appear to have been slick up front but deep down couldn't care less.

              See Peja as public enemy #1 on that front.



              I'd have Ron back because I think people do mature. Reggie sure as hell stopped being the guy he was in 91 or 94. Cripes, dude showed the choke sign to a FAN and during the game. Dude bowed. Stood on the scorers table. In all ways he was a brash ahole.

              And then Jax went around with his shimmy.

              But if you jettisoned those guys for that stuff you wouldn't have been around to see them in 2000. Reggie in his final seasons did not carry himself the same as he did in 90.

              Guys mature, even the outlandish and the nutjobs. What's going to happen is a bunch of people are running scared of the water because their was once a shark attack. There hasn't been one since basically he asked for the trade.

              His rep and someone not caring for his dog kept it going in Sacto.


              I would visit Ron, have him come in, feel out the TEAM. And if those steps said green light to me then I'd sign him and let the fans see what I already would know to be true, that he was going to do just fine.

              And if I brought him in and got those skittish vibes I'd step away from the table and be done with him. I'm not proposing selling the team's soul, I'm saying that it's wrong to see Ron as some absolute. I'm sick of this "its just a matter of time" thing. When? How long do you have to wait? Forever?

              If the dude never acts up again in a disruptive way (ie, shaved head stuff doesn't count) then it means he WAS NOT A TIME BOMB.

              I might as well say we need to trade Danny because it's only a matter of time before he stabs someone, you'll see. Ron MIGHT be the same, but it's looking more and more like he's not.

              I trust Bird to know if this is true if he meets him face to face. I think it would be smart to find out just where Ron is at right now rather than cutting our nose off to spite our face.



              PS - as I already said, if you sign Ron then part of that contract has in big letters "you damn sure better start with a huge apology to Larry and the fans for betraying their faith and that it was the roster rather than the team that drove him out".

              I'm not supporting unconditional love. I'm opposing unconditional hatred.
              That's a lot of text, a lot of which I disagree with.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                If the dude never acts up again in a disruptive way (ie, shaved head stuff doesn't count) then it means he WAS NOT A TIME BOMB.

                I might as well say we need to trade Danny because it's only a matter of time before he stabs someone, you'll see. Ron MIGHT be the same, but it's looking more and more like he's not.
                You can't be serious. Wait, nevermind.

                Comment


                • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Exactly. And I'm a Walsh fan. I'm not even really blaming him, I just think things added up and that with 2 guys in charge it didn't work well and kept them from having a plan.

                  I like Jack. I sort of like Ron. I defended JO and feel let down by him. I defended Tinsley and feel really betrayed by him. I think Al was a royal jerk and I'm not all that fond of AJ and the bombs he lobbed back at the Pacers.

                  2 guys from the bad bunch actually showed Rick some respect, but both get blasted for not doing so because they so openly didn't at first. That's Jack and Ron. But to me those have been the 2 guys in the long run that were willing to say "well maybe I should have followed him better". Frankly Jackson made a habit of losing it and then feeling bad about it.

                  I get that people don't want to see that, but better that than the players that actually didn't respect the coach or the team.

                  Ron and Jack respected the coach and team...they just weren't very good at it. Some of the other players appear to have been slick up front but deep down couldn't care less.

                  See Peja as public enemy #1 on that front.



                  I'd have Ron back because I think people do mature. Reggie sure as hell stopped being the guy he was in 91 or 94. Cripes, dude showed the choke sign to a FAN and during the game. Dude bowed. Stood on the scorers table. In all ways he was a brash ahole.

                  And then Jax went around with his shimmy.

                  But if you jettisoned those guys for that stuff you wouldn't have been around to see them in 2000. Reggie in his final seasons did not carry himself the same as he did in 90.

                  Guys mature, even the outlandish and the nutjobs. What's going to happen is a bunch of people are running scared of the water because their was once a shark attack. There hasn't been one since basically he asked for the trade.

                  His rep and someone not caring for his dog kept it going in Sacto.


                  I would visit Ron, have him come in, feel out the TEAM. And if those steps said green light to me then I'd sign him and let the fans see what I already would know to be true, that he was going to do just fine.

                  And if I brought him in and got those skittish vibes I'd step away from the table and be done with him. I'm not proposing selling the team's soul, I'm saying that it's wrong to see Ron as some absolute. I'm sick of this "its just a matter of time" thing. When? How long do you have to wait? Forever?

                  If the dude never acts up again in a disruptive way (ie, shaved head stuff doesn't count) then it means he WAS NOT A TIME BOMB.

                  I might as well say we need to trade Danny because it's only a matter of time before he stabs someone, you'll see. Ron MIGHT be the same, but it's looking more and more like he's not.

                  I trust Bird to know if this is true if he meets him face to face. I think it would be smart to find out just where Ron is at right now rather than cutting our nose off to spite our face.



                  PS - as I already said, if you sign Ron then part of that contract has in big letters "you damn sure better start with a huge apology to Larry and the fans for betraying their faith and that it was the roster rather than the team that drove him out".

                  I'm not supporting unconditional love. I'm opposing unconditional hatred.
                  While I respect your opinion I must respectfully disagree.

                  Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

                  Am I saying Ron Artest can not behave? Absolutely not. I think Rom can behave for a year...maybe a little more. But just from following Artest since he left the Pacers (and some of this is from a poster who I believe posted under VF21) I do not think he has changed.

                  Is there a chance that Artest will behave for the rest of his career? Yes, there is. But there is also a chance (maybe it is a even greater change) I will win the lottery tonight and can quit my job and drop out of school. I personally do not see either of those scenarios as likely to happen.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

                    Can we have a moratorium on any comparisons of troubled player X to Reggie Miller? Reggie Miller is a once-in-a-lifetime type of player, not a precedent.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      You ignored half of what I said, and essentially agreed with what you didn't ignore. We agree that winning will win back casual fans.
                      I don't see how I ignored anything. While you want us to win, you're seemingly willing to wait years and years for the team to be better so that we can win with a "character" team. Everything to you revolves around chemistry, but that's really only a part of what it takes to win. Casual fans don't care about good guys or bad guys, they care about guys who win, who rep their city and who have their teammates backs. That is Ron Artest.

                      I want to win as soon as possible, even if it means adding some players who have some controversy. I don't want to add all the former Jail Blazers we can find, but this is a player has lock down defense, powerful driving ability, great 3pt shooting and most importantly has fire. How does that not fit our team needs perfectly? His teammates generally love him (save JO), he fires fans up and he will come to play every night. Get over this idea that your own definition of good character should determine how much a player will help a team that desperately needs help. Like I said, this isn't IU basketball, we don't have to be clean. We have to accept that players are going to get in trouble and just make sure they come to play every night.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

                        in all fairness it's not just about questioning character, from what i saw in the playoffs ron ron's shot selection made the offense look stagnant at times and 3 point shot seemed dismal

                        Comment


                        • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

                          Originally posted by quinnthology View Post
                          I don't see how I ignored anything.
                          See the part about the core fans (NOT the casual fans) and the poisoned well. Poo-poo it all you want, that was reality, and it was a serious issue. Fixing that was huge.

                          While you want us to win, you're seemingly willing to wait years and years for the team to be better so that we can win with a "character" team.
                          Absolutely, though it's kind of silly to suggest that getting "good guys" necessarily means waiting a long time to get better and getting "Bad guys" means instant talent. It's not that simple.

                          Everything to you revolves around chemistry, but that's really only a part of what it takes to win.
                          It takes chemistry, talent, commitment, and luck. I want them all. The Pacers are building a lot of the first and third, and two isn't as far behind as it used to be. I don't care if you're trying to recruit a bunch of murdering thieves on your team or a bunch of sissies, you can't just will your roster into being more talented. It always takes time.

                          Primarily, it comes down to chemistry (character) and talent. I want both. Not one versus the other.

                          Casual fans don't care about good guys or bad guys, they care about guys who win, who rep their city and who have their teammates backs.
                          A couple things here.

                          One, not all casual fans don't give a **** about character. That's simply incorrect. I and many others on PD and around the state have heard for years people ***** and moan about the Pacers being "a bunch of thugs" and how it turned them off from caring. Are some of them full of ****? Absolutely, but not all of them. Does winning help a lot? Absolutely. No one's saying you can just continue to not win.

                          Two, repping a city is a two-sided thing. You can NEGATIVELY rep your city, which is what we started running into this decade with various players, and as we learned with Stephen Jackson, having your teammate's back CAN BLOW UP IN YOU AND YOUR TEAM'S FACE.

                          That is Ron Artest.
                          Hell no! He showed how much he gave a **** about our fans when he demanded a trade in November/December after we all waited A YEAR for him to come back and "save" the team's title hopes! He gave us all the finger by being a selfish jerk.

                          I want to win as soon as possible,
                          We all do. You, me, anyone else here, Bird, Morway, whomever. We ALL want that.

                          even if it means adding some players who have some controversy.
                          We're close to being able to play around with that, but it's too soon. It's like some of you don't understand how ****ed up things in Pacer-land got these past few years. Things are not magically better now. They're getting there, but to play with fire now is simply too soon to risk it.

                          Furthermore, getting shadier players promises nothing. Any move has it's share of risks.

                          I guess you want to call the San Antonio Spurs wrong for having the same method that Bird/Morway/et al are taking? Because it's the same one, essentially. The only difference is they were blessed with Tim Duncan, and we weren't. But they carry the same basic philosophy of collecting good guys who fit in, and if they aren't or don't, they send them packing. What a loser's mentality those Spurs have!

                          I don't want to add all the former Jail Blazers we can find,
                          Why not? Talent seems to be all you care about, so why not?

                          but this is a player has lock down defense, powerful driving ability, great 3pt shooting and most importantly has fire. How does that not fit our team needs perfectly?
                          For reasons discussed about 10,000 times already here and in old threads. He has major issues. Even if you subscribe to the theory that he's a changed man (which I don't), he burned his bridge here already. That ship has sailed. You can't ignore what he did the first time.

                          His teammates generally love him (save JO), he fires fans up and he will come to play every night.
                          Except when he's faking a migraine, a back injury, some other injury, being quietly suspended by the team for conduct detrimental to said team, breaking things in the locker room, etc, etc, etc.

                          Get over this idea that your own definition of good character should determine how much a player will help a team that desperately needs help.
                          It's two different things. Character, and talent. I want TALENTED, good character players. Not one, or the other by itself!

                          Like I said, this isn't IU basketball, we don't have to be clean. We have to accept that players are going to get in trouble and just make sure they come to play every night.
                          That's what Donnie Walsh told him self in the early part of this decade. That worked out great for him, didn't it?

                          The bottom line is you can't just waive a magic wand over this team and make it a contender. It's going to take time. Move by move, piece by piece. Since you're locked into taking your time anyway, you might as well be choosy about who you bring in and find good guys WITH TALENT.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

                            Hicks, can you explain to me what all the **** mean?
                            The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

                              What some people seem to be missing is that the Artest Era didn't just cause casual fans to stop coming to the games, it caused them to actively hate their own local franchise.

                              That's a huge difference and one that makes no risk worth it.

                              Besides, he's going to LA where he'll be reqarded for his behavior by winning rings on the back of Kobe and Phil Jackson.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • Re: Bring Ron-Ron back ??

                                Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                                Hicks, can you explain to me what all the **** mean?
                                I think with your wisdom, experience, and imagination, you can figure them out.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X