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

Insider Request

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

  • Insider Request

    When the clock strikes midnight Wednesday, just about every NBA player becomes trade-eligible, and the general consensus is that deals will proceed faster than they did a year ago, when Dec. 15 was a dud in terms of trades.

    "There seems to be a lot of movement right now. There are some teams trying to push things and make some deals," Suns general manager Bryan Colangelo said Tuesday night.



    Plenty of teams could use a point guard like Earl Watson.
    Under collective-bargaining rules, players who signed contracts over the summer are ineligible to be dealt for 90 days after they signed or until Dec. 15 -- whichever is later. That means a handful of signings that seemed to make sense at the time -- Earl Watson signing with Denver, Arvydas Macijauskas joining the Hornets, Jerome James bringing his enlarged frame to New York -- can now be put in the past. All it will take is the right match between two willing partners.

    "As a businessperson who knows my job, a person who is educated on what I do, the 15th is an important date for me, so I'm very much aware of it," said Watson, who it seemed was being showcased Tuesday night, making three 3-pointers and a dunk in the fourth quarter of Denver's 99-87 victory at Charlotte.

    Watson signed a five-year contract for the Nuggets' full mid-level exception last summer, but Denver coach George Karl has had little use for him, playing him only 14 minutes per game and holding him out of nine of the Nuggets' 21 games. New York has offered forward Malik Rose, but Denver general manager Kiki Vandeweghe is likely to find a more appealing offer from a team that feels Watson can become a latter-day Eric Snow -- a heady, defense-minded point guard who feels he's ready to become an everyday contributor rather than being stuck as a career backup.

    With many teams searching for size, there has been a keen focus on the threesome of bigs -- Corliss Williamson, Brian Skinner and Kenny Thomas -- that the Sacramento Kings received from Philadelphia in last season's Chris Webber trade. Many sources believe Thomas is the most likely to be moved, and several pro-personnel types were in attendance Saturday night in Seattle as Thomas played a mundane 17-minute stint, shooting just 1-of-3 with one rebound. The 6-7 forward, who makes $6.5 million, is under contract for four more seasons. Williamson has only one season remaining, while Skinner has two. Kings president Geoff Petrie is seeking scoring off the bench.

    Elsewhere, two teams mentioned by several league sources as the most likely to pull the trigger soon are the New Jersey Nets and Washington Wizards.

    Nets president Rod Thorn would like to upgrade the power-forward position for an underachieving team that lost by 20 points at Washington on Wednesday night. He has been shopping third-string point guard Zoran Planinic and a pair of first-round picks (the Nets' own and the Clippers'), and the arrival of Dec. 15 will allow him to package one or more of the spare parts (Lamond Murray, Scott Padgett, Jeff McInnis) that New Jersey signed over the summer.

    Washington would like to acquire someone to take some defensive heat off Gilbert Arenas, who is running up against the opponent's best defender on a night-in, night-out basis now that other teams no longer have to worry about Larry Hughes. Antonio Daniels, signed as a free agent in the offseason, is averaging only 4.7 points on 30 percent shooting. He will now become eligible to be traded, and the Wizards may try to find him a new home more suited to his strengths as a ballhandler and offensive initiator. Another Washington guard, Chucky Atkins, has formally requested a trade.

    The pace of Dec. 15-related activity likely will be affected by the Indiana Pacers, as they sort through more than a dozen offers that have come in since the start of the week when they announced they would trade Ron Artest. Until the other 29 teams know where Artest is headed, some will hold off on making other deals.

    Sacramento, for instance, could hold off on a Thomas or Skinner trade if it believes it has a viable shot at acquiring Artest. Petrie, aghast at the Kings' poor start before they put together their current three-game winning streak, has been exploring all of his options, including deals involving Peja Stojakovic, who will be an unrestricted free agent at the end of the season heading into a summer in which teams with significant cap space will have very few impact players to bid on. Stojakovic's asking price likely will be $12 million or more, and the Kings will have to make a judgment about whether Peja is worth the price. If they decide he isn't, they may trade him sooner rather than later -- especially if the Artest situation impacts their choices.

    The Chicago Bulls are widely seen as Stojakovic's most likely next destination, but any team that acquired Peja during this season would also get his "Larry Bird rights" -- which means that team would have the opportunity to re-sign the 28-year-old, even if it meant going over the usual salary-cap limits.

    If Chicago fears that another team will acquire Stojakovic and effectively take him off next summer's market, the best time might be now to put together a package (Luol Deng, Tim Thomas and draft picks) that would be more appealing to the Kings than a straight-up swap for Artest.

    Stojakovic's countryman Vladimir Radmanovic likely will stay put in Seattle. After signing a one-year tender, he has the right to veto any trade. If he were to accept a trade, he'd forfeit his Bird rights and would be prevented from re-signing with the team that acquired him if it were over the $49.5 million salary cap. Radmanovic likely would only accept a trade to a team that will be substantially below the cap next summer (Clippers, Bulls).

    His teammate Ronald Murray has been mentioned as a candidate for a trade from Seattle to the Nuggets. He also would have to forfeit his Bird rights, but Denver would be able to re-sign him for any amount up to next season's mid-level exception. But because Murray didn't sign until Sept. 27, he will not become trade-eligible until Dec. 26.

    A few other players around the league will remain ineligible to be traded until 90 days elapse from the date they signed. Among them are Miami's Gary Payton (eligible Dec. 21), Chicago's Darius Songaila (Dec. 22), Orlando's Bo Outlaw (Dec. 28), Charlotte's Keith Bogans (Dec. 29) and Miami's Jason Kapono (Jan. 2).

    Of course, there's always a chance that this Dec. 15 will be another dud, coming and going without any deals. That's what happened last season, but the calm was loudly shattered two days later when New Jersey pulled off its trade for Vince Carter.

    This season, however, there seems to be a consensus that teams are a little more eager to deal.


    Chris Sheridan, a national NBA reporter for the past decade, covers the league for ESPN Insider. To e-mail Chris, click here.

  • #2
    Re: Insider Request

    Stojakovic's asking price likely will be $12 million or more, and the Kings will have to make a judgment about whether Peja is worth the price.
    wow.



    I've been in favor of getting him for Ron, but he wants a crazy crazy deal after this year. I think that a strong belief you could sign him to a reasonable new contract, 3 years, 8 million or so tops a year, would be a prerequisite to making that trade
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Insider Request

      Originally posted by pacertom
      wow.



      I've been in favor of getting him for Ron, but he wants a crazy crazy deal after this year. I think that a strong belief you could sign him to a reasonable new contract, 3 years, 8 million or so tops a year, would be a prerequisite to making that trade
      Peja =

      I think this effectively nukes that potential deal.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Insider Request

        I have a feeling that Peja is end up with the Bulls. If Petrie doesn't go to the Bulls asking for Deng and a 1st round pick....then he should be fired. Peja is not going to win a championship for them.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment

        Working...
        X