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

I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

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

  • #31
    Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

    Marion?I don't think we should trade Ron at all.He is a hardworker and is commited to getting this team over the hump.Don't trade Ron.
    Super Bowl XLI Champions
    2000 Eastern Conference Champions




    Comment


    • #32
      Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.



      Out of the three mentioned, Peja, The Truth, and Matrix, I would want Matrix, I don't know why most of you are down on him, but have you honestly seen him play more then just every now and then. He is a great player who can do it all. And he CAN create his own shot. His shot is not pretty but that don't matter as long as it goes in.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

        Originally posted by Anthem
        EDIT: And I'll say it a third time in this thread, because I've yet to see it recognized and I don't think it can be disputed. Ron Artest has made huge strides every year. Until he stops making those strides, it would be foolish to move him. Does anyone disagree with this statement? If so, I want to hear a good reason.
        For all the progress he makes, its two steps forward and three steps back.

        For all the alleged progress he makes, why do we still talk about the same things - mental lapses (aka selfish behavior) that cost us games on a recurring basis? This topic has followed him since before his Pacers days, and its still an issue.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

          Peja's the worst of those three, but I still wouldn't mind. I mean the man shot 43% from 3 last year. Yes, I know about the playoffs. His dropped stats are still what Ron got offensively (because Ron's not a good shooter).

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

            Originally posted by Jay@Section222
            Originally posted by Anthem
            EDIT: And I'll say it a third time in this thread, because I've yet to see it recognized and I don't think it can be disputed. Ron Artest has made huge strides every year. Until he stops making those strides, it would be foolish to move him. Does anyone disagree with this statement? If so, I want to hear a good reason.
            For all the progress he makes, its two steps forward and three steps back.

            For all the alleged progress he makes, why do we still talk about the same things - mental lapses (aka selfish behavior) that cost us games on a recurring basis? This topic has followed him since before his Pacers days, and its still an issue.
            I thought that Ron's biggest problem during the 02-03 season was not being able to control his anger (his flagrant fouls and breaking/throwing stuff). His "selfish behavior" wasn't the biggest concern for most of us at the time.

            Last season, he made great progress in controlling his anger. The flagrant fouls and anger issues were pretty much gone. With his biggest problem gone, we started to focus on his other problems.

            What I saw was a man trying to do too much when situations got tough. He tried to put too much on himself when he should have reached out and trusted his teammates. I dare to say most people have times in their lives trying to do too much when the situations get tough (not asking for directions when you are lost, anyone?). All confident people have problems in defering to others during tough times. Remember Paul Pierce in Basketball World Championship. He was very selfish because he was trying to do way too much. And now, some of us want to get him.

            It seems that Ron still have trust issue with his teammates. This is in some way understandable. After the turmoil during the 2nd half of 02-03 season, the chemistry of this team is still relatively fragile, even though they have been together for a few yeras. However, trust can be built and I believe that with another year, the trust issue would be better.

            I admit that flagrant foul at the end of game 6 is a huge mistake, but does it warrant to tarde him? This is like the out cry of hatred after Kevin Ollie missed that lay-up in game 5 vs NJ. IIRC, some people missed him not long into the 02-03 season.

            I guess what I want to say is I'm not condoning what he did. But give him another year before we decide whether he should be gone or not. If situation persists, then ship his @ss out. In the mean time, be patient. I know some of you will say that we said the same thing a year ago. But it was about his anger problem last year and it is about his selfish behavior this year.

            According to some of us, if he is really that unbearable right now, why would other teams want to trade equal value for him? If that's the case, are we willing to accept much lower value for him?

            [edit=509=1090907138][/edit]

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

              For all the progress he makes, its two steps forward and three steps back.

              For all the alleged progress he makes, why do we still talk about the same things - mental lapses (aka selfish behavior) that cost us games on a recurring basis? This topic has followed him since before his Pacers days, and its still an issue.
              No, it's more like 3 steps forward and 1 step back.

              I'm really struggling with "cost us games on a recurring basis." Besides the last game of the season, how many games do you think he lost us last year? I mean, we won 60 freaking games... more than anybody else in the league. He can't have cost us THAT many. And you've got to admit that he won us an awful lot of games, as well. Like, most of Round 2.

              If he hadn't screwed up in the last 5 minutes of our last game of the season, we wouldn't be having this conversation. In fact, up until Round 3 everyone was singing his praises for how far he'd come.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

                Anthem...I will agree that Ron made huge strides this year. In not committing flagrants, until the end. Then the pressure got to him and he lost it somewhat. But he made strides. EXCEPT...I see Ron as a little kid. Pushing the limits. You show him where the limits are...he'll test them elsewhere. I can't swim naked in the birdbath??? Then how about breaking windows with rocks? I can't throw elbows or trip the opposition? Well how about biatching about the play calling?? Can I get away with that? No? How about missing practice can I get away with that? Well how about...on and on ad infinitum.

                When is enough, enough? I recognize his talent and value (when not pressure) and you can ask Writerman, along with Uncle Buck, I was one of Ron's staunchest defenders last year. But I'm seeing things that don't look normal to me, and make me doubt his ability to ever handle stress without help.

                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

                  I see Ron as a little kid. Pushing the limits. You show him where the limits are...he'll test them elsewhere.
                  Sure he does. But the most amazing thing happens to kids... THEY GROW OUT OF IT. Absolutely he can be immature. But he's more mature this year than last, and I want to know what other people are seeing that makes them doubt that he'll be more mature next year than this year.

                  I haven't got an answer beyond Hicks' "He's got severe mental problems." And we know that's not a competent diagnosis, because if it was he'd have said "emotional issues." Artest's intelligence is (so far) not in question.

                  EDIT: What really makes me crazy is the idea that Ron's poor shot selection is killing our team, but that it would be ok to trade for Paul Pierce, who doesn't do D and costs twice as much. We saw what happened when PP and Ron went head-to-head. Ron DESTROYED him.
                  [edit=39=1090818225][/edit]
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

                    EDIT: What really makes me crazy is the idea that Ron's poor shot selection is killing our team, but that it would be ok to trade for Paul Pierce, who doesn't do D and costs twice as much. We saw what happened when PP and Ron went head-to-head. Ron DESTROYED him.

                    Well I certainly never said it was OK to trade for Pierce. I saw him in the World Games and have never liked him since!!
                    But there ARE players I COULD see trading for.
                    [edit=99=1090818619][/edit]
                    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

                      Originally posted by indygeezer
                      Well I certainly never said it was OK to trade for Pierce. I saw him in the World Games and have never liked him since!!
                      But there ARE players I COULD see trading for.
                      Fair enough. I'm ok with losing any player on the team (including JO) if it brings back equal or greater value. I just don't see many players that I'd consider equal value, and Pierce certainly isn't one of them. I actually like Peja a lot, although I'd still have a hard time giving Ron for him. Shawn Marion's a nice player, and I'd be wiling to lose Bender for him, but not Artest.

                      Who did you have in mind?
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

                        I'm a big fan of Peja...I just wish he'd shave I absolutely hate that 3 day growth look so many pro athletes sport nowdays.

                        I would have been willing to give up Ron (+others) for McGrady. ...(ok I'm begging off here...it's late and I've been driving all day ...I'll fill in more list in AM).




                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

                          Originally posted by indygeezer
                          I'm a big fan of Peja...I just wish he'd shave I absolutely hate that 3 day growth look so many pro athletes sport nowdays.

                          I would have been willing to give up Ron (+others) for McGrady. ...(ok I'm begging off here...it's late and I've been driving all day ...I'll fill in more list in AM).
                          Yeah, I'd have made the trade for McGrady. But there's not many else out there that I'd spring for. Same with JO. I'd trade him straight up for Duncan or Garnett, but nobody else.

                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

                            During the night a question occured to me. Say a trade was proposed between Indy and Sac for Peja... and the Sac mnmgnt went to Brad Miller and asked what he thought. What do you suppose he'd tell them???


                            OK a few I would consider (realizing that it would take extras one way or the other to even things up, but I like these guys well enough to consider a trade if they were included) Outside the obvious and in no order:

                            Blount with Welsch
                            St. Nash
                            Mike Finely
                            Andre Kirelenko
                            Szczerbiak
                            Tony Parker
                            Ginoboli
                            Ray Allen
                            Calvin Booth
                            Kwame Brown
                            Magloire/Mashburn
                            Mike Redd
                            TJ Ford
                            Dwayne Wade
                            Brian Grant
                            Amare Stoudamire
                            Shawn MArion
                            Q. Richardson

                            I already mention Peja
                            doubtful I'd do Damp even straight up.

                            and remember I said I consider SOME of these if they were INCLUDED in a deal, not necessarily straight up, but as principal pieces I'd probably do it.
                            [edit=99=1090842171][/edit]
                            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

                              Kwame Brown would be nice to have, to play at center, but I'm not gonna give up Artest for him. Brown/Jamison/Draft Picks would be interesting though...
                              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: I wish we would trade Ron Artest.

                                Dont trade Ron. We wont get close to equal value in return. I'm amazed that so many people are down on him, I guess its a case of what has he done for me lately, everyone thinks that he blew the ECFs. Its all experience, this team hasn't gotten close to going that deep into the playoffs before and were beaten by a team that had gone through it all last season.

                                Ron has improved out of sight, its crazy for people to say that he is taking 2 steps forward 3 steps back. As long as Ron keeps improving then why even think about trading him, his temper is greatly improved and now you guys question his shot selection. That will improve too with experience he has gained this season and postseason.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X