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

Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

    am i the only one that finds it a bit intriquing that we supposedly expressed interest in bobby simmons????



    http://www.jsonline.com/sports/buck/aug05/346995.asp


    Death of brother affected Simmons' plans

    By CHRISTOPHER DABE
    cdabe@journalsentinel.com

    Posted: Aug. 8, 2005

    St. Francis - Making the trip north from Chicago to the Bradley Center for each of the Milwaukee Bucks' home games next season will be the parents of Bobby Simmons, who officially joined the team Monday.

    Bucks/NBA




    Photo/Jack Orton

    Bobby Simmons is all smiles after making his new deal official with the Bucks.













    Absent from those visits will be one of Simmons' three brothers, Shawn Powell, a 23-year-old who was killed in a drive-by shooting last month in Chicago.
    His brother's slaying, Simmons said Monday, was as much of a factor in his decision to sign a five-year, $47 million free-agent contract as the Bucks' ambition of qualifying for the playoffs next season.

    "It's hard," said Simmons, 25, who was raised in Chicago and played college basketball at DePaul. "That's why I decided to stay closer to home.

    "It's great for me to be here. I feel like (my parents) can reach out to me whenever they want to."

    Simmons, a 6-foot-6 forward, averaged 16.4 points, 5.9 rebounds, 2.7 assists and 1.4 steals per game in 75 games last season for the Los Angeles Clippers. His 8.6 points-per-game increase from the previous season was a major reason he was named the National Basketball Association's most improved player.

    He reached an agreement with the Bucks in early July but was unable to sign a contract before last Tuesday because of the league's moratorium on signing players before then.

    Simmons was introduced as an official member of the Bucks at a news conference Monday at the Cousins Center. At the news conference were Simmons' fiancée, Brandi Anderson, and 5-year-old son, Bakari.

    Simmons, who was an unrestricted free agent, said Atlanta, Charlotte, Indiana and New Orleans also expressed interest in signing him but Milwaukee was his most attractive option. He said he discussed options with his family, specifically his parents, Bobby and Charlene Simmons, after his brother was killed.

    "After that situation, after we sat and talked, I felt that if I can stay closer to home - and that was an option that I did have - then that would play a key in (my decision)," Simmons said.

    Simmons said his brother was in the process of earning a trade school degree in carpentry and had recently moved to Milwaukee. Simmons said his brother was visiting in Chicago when he was shot July 8.

    "He went home over the course of a weekend," Simmons said. "He was at the wrong place at the wrong time."

    Simmons, a four-year veteran, started 74 games last season for the Clippers but might find himself in a backup role to guard Michael Redd and forward Desmond Mason.

    Simmons said he had no expectations about working his way into the starting lineup, but he figures to be involved in the Bucks' regular rotation.

    "I'm going to keep that up to coach (Terry) Stotts," Simmons said. "Unfortunately, I wasn't a starter for all of my career.

    "Actually, I just want to play with a group of guys that wants to win. Starting was not a factor. As long as I'm out there on the floor, I hope I can help us win games."

    Bucks general manager Larry Harris said he targeted Simmons early in the off-season. He said Simmons is an accomplished scorer who can play on both ends of the floor.

    "The first thing that stood out for me about him was toughness," Harris said. "One of the weaknesses we had last year was at the defensive end of the floor. We needed to add more toughness to our team and guys who were going to be more of a defensive mind-set."

    Harris said he would have sought Simmons even if he did not come to contract agreements with Redd and center Dan Gadzuric, neither of whom has signed a contract but is expected to soon.

    The signing of Simmons, the addition of No. 1 overall draft choice Andrew Bogut and the expected return of point guard T.J. Ford will offer a different look for a Bucks team that was 30-52 and last in the Central Division last season.

    "I think it's a great fit," Simmons said.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

    No..i did too.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

      Me too I posted a similar article a few minutes earlier

      http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=13988

      HICKS you can delete mine, thanks.

      Why Not Us ?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

        Why Bobby Simmons?

        It's not like it's a trade or something either - he's a free agent, which means money, lux tax, etc.

        Maybe he was regarded as a steal if he comes cheap, and worth the extra tax?
        Maybe the thought was "let's see if we can get him for 30/6. If we do, then we think what next..."

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

          Originally posted by Pacerfan23
          Me too I posted a similar article a few minutes earlier

          http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=13988

          HICKS you can delete mine, thanks.
          sorry bout that...didnt see it....

          anyway....why were we interested in bobby simmons??....a sf....

          lets see...artest....granger....jj....jack....

          boy...id love to know the thinking behind that...

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

            Any chance he's full of it? Just naming teams that wanted him in order to pump up his value and justify his salary?

            That would be my guess.
            This space for rent.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

              Originally posted by Anthem
              Any chance he's full of it? Just naming teams that wanted him in order to pump up his value and justify his salary?

              That would be my guess.
              He already got the money - no need to pump up anything now...
              And if he wanted to justify his salary, he just has to say the magic words: "Bill Simmons" (any relation, btw? ).

              I'd guess he was talking with Indiana, and it probably got grounded after Draft night.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

                Yeah if Indiana was talking too him after drafting Granger that would really make me wonder who they would be looking to move, especially commanding that kind of Salary my only guess would be SJax would be moved along with someone else...

                Why Not Us ?

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

                  Originally posted by Anthem
                  Any chance he's full of it? Just naming teams that wanted him in order to pump up his value and justify his salary?

                  That would be my guess.
                  well i did find it interesting, also, that the other teams mentioned were charlotte, atlanta, and new orleans....

                  think about that....

                  and yes...its possible....though i find it a bit hard to believe a guy would just make something up like that....

                  its too easily refutable....and very little to gain...i mean hes already got the contract.....i wonder about some of these agents that throw out teams names before their client has a deal....but once a deal is made....why make up a team???? seems like a potential loss of credibility with very little upside....

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

                    If you want to speculate for the sake of speculating, you would then wonder if they were that interested in Simmons and were looking to move some marquee player or players for him , who are they , and do they still intend on moving said person or persons.. again just idle speculation but something to ponder none the less..

                    Why Not Us ?

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

                      It also could have been a sign and trade scenario th Pacers were interested in. Possibly involving Fred Jones and AJ.

                      We really do not have any veteran depth off the bench (except Fred) at either the 2 or the 3. He could of helped us at both spots.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

                        Originally posted by naptown
                        It also could have been a sign and trade scenario th Pacers were interested in. Possibly involving Fred Jones and AJ.

                        We really do not have any veteran depth off the bench (except Fred) at either the 2 or the 3. He could of helped us at both spots.
                        Correct but at 5 years 47 million there would have had to be someone else involved ..I would think ?

                        Why Not Us ?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

                          I would assume the Pacers "show interest" in a whole lot of players that we never hear about.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

                            Every time I see an article about the Pacers expressing interest in a SF a little bell dings in my head where I think that while they may not be actively shopping Artest, they definitely are leaving that option open - particularly if his trade value goes back up a couple of months into the season.

                            Otherwise they have zero use for Simmons with Granger waiting in the wings.

                            Though I guess Jackson could be the guy on the block.
                            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers had interest in Bobby Simmons?

                              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                              Every time I see an article about the Pacers expressing interest in a SF a little bell dings in my head where I think that while they may not be actively shopping Artest, they definitely are leaving that option open - particularly if his trade value goes back up a couple of months into the season.

                              Otherwise they have zero use for Simmons with Granger waiting in the wings.

                              Though I guess Jackson could be the guy on the block.
                              Correct, If I had to guess that one of the two where on the block I would
                              say Jackson, for some reason, that would not surprise me although I am sure not a popular move for some. Not to mention I would like to see Stephen play a season at his natural position, However I would not be sho cked if that was the case.

                              Why Not Us ?

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X