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

Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

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

  • Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

    Here is a thread from the Atl board. Looks like the owner said the Indy deal is dead and they are looking to move on to somewhere else.

    http://www.hawksquawk.net/forums/sho...&fpart=#165496

  • #2
    Re: Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

    From someone in the above thread.

    I heard the whole interview. Bernie's quote was essentially that the Pacers deal is, at least for now, no more. He said it is another situation in which the GM and the owner are not on the same page (on the Pacers side). He said there are other deals out there, and in most cases, it is guys offering overpaid veterans that they're not willing to take. He said the most desirable deal involves someone offering 3 guys, 2 of them are young and they want them, 1 a veteran that they don't want, but will live with. The issue is that this other team doesn't want to meet Al's salary demands. But, if Al lowers demands or team ups willingness to take on Al's deal, that one can work. He also said if they resigned Al and traded him later, they can't deal him till December 15th. He wasn't really saying that was an "option", he referred to it when somebody asked him if they might do that.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

      Thanks for the post. I read all the comments, and it seems as if DW and Simon aren't agreeing on this one, according to interview mentioned.

      Makes me wonder where we go from here?

      99% done my a**!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

        Looks like #1 pick could well be a lottery one for the Pacers this season if this is true.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

          Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
          Looks like #1 pick could well be a lottery one for the Pacers this season if this is true.
          And this also makes the draft picks look bad. I would think that the pick of Shawne Williams was made on the assumption that he would have time to develop, but he is going to have to contribute right away. That coupled with the complete bungling of the Al Harrington situation, makes this one of the worst offseasons in DW's career. How could he have not run all this by the owners before getting involved?
          Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
          http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

            Well, so far every rumor about Al has been false. I think I am going to go ahead and wait and see on this one as well.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

              Perhaps the owners were expecting other salary dump deals to happen and don't want to go through with the Harrington deal because of luxury tax implications? They want to make sure they go nowhere near it.

              But if the Simons aren't going to allow the front office to grab players that will help us win games, especially a guy that has been here like Harrington who fits so many needs off the court, then what does that imply? To me if you're not going to try to quickly "re-tool" this team by grabbing Harrington and making a few more moves, choosing instead to stand pat with a very young roster, then go all out. Blow it up. Make that 07 pick worth it. Trade Jack, Tins, Foster, O'Neal if you're worried about money and want to rebuild. But pick one: re-tool or re-build. Then let the GM do his job. I'd be very surprised if the owners disagreed with a move Walsh wanted to make. The owners have never been a liability before, I don't get why they'd start now.

              In any case: That about sums up my feelings.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

                The offseason isn't over yet. And Harrington not coming to Indiana is still only a rumor. We'll see.
                Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

                  The Artest Saga just won't go away. From the Brawl to Ron wanting to be traded to being not allowed to play until traded to the trade for Peja who semingly bolted via FA for nothing to the trade exemption to the endless negotiations with Atlanta for Al.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

                    Originally posted by FrenchConnection View Post
                    one of the worst offseasons in DW's career.
                    Aw, c'mon. It's too soon to say that.

                    Daniels for Croshere was a great move. That move alone achieves more than the typical Pacers off-season. Getting the Trade Exception for Peja was stroke of genius. All the other little bits don't impress me, but they show Walsh is on the job.

                    You make a good point: Williams is not the guy you would have drafted for immediate impact at power forward. But they picked up Maceo Baston to work ahead of Williams in the depth chart, and they got him cheap.

                    If: a) the Harrington deal falls through, and, b) the Pacers make no further moves during the off-season, then I agree the outlook will be pretty bleak for the start of the season. But it won't have been made materially worse by anything done in the off-season.

                    Even at the worst, this off season will have brought two benefits:

                    a) The way is clear for Granger to start at small forward.
                    b) The payroll is down by several million.



                    .
                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

                      The Simons have been a pretty "hands off" owenrship group. Something like this would surprise me.


                      "Like [Jonathan Bender], AMC's Pacer was supposed to be fitted with a rotary engine--but both rotaries had technical problems late in their development (read: after incurring heavy research costs) that prevented them from seeing the light of day. Of course, both vehicles had plenty of problems that did reach production. The Pacer was a dud in terms of quality, execution and particularly styling. Make your own assessment about its bizarre proportions, but don't miss the one door that's bigger than the other."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

                        Looking more and more like Kravitz may be right
                        Heywoode says... work hard man.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

                          Good cop, bad cop.

                          It ain't dead yet.
                          You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                          All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                          - Jimmy Buffett

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

                            Originally posted by Doug in OH View Post
                            Looking more and more like Kravitz may be right
                            Please don't ever say this again.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Is the Harrington to Indy deal dead?

                              I really don't see why people care. We should just sign Melvin Ely (is he still available?) to the MLE and save the TE for later dealings. When does the TE expire?

                              Keep our draft pick, we will suck this year but who cares let our young guys develop. James White is going to be a good player I guarantee it. I think trading Jermaine and Jackson is the only way this team will ever have any success in the playoffs.

                              I like Jackson, but there is no way stern is going to let the team that has those two guys from the brawl ever go anywhere. So screw the harrington deal, lets tank this year and get Oden then trade JO and Jack for some young guys/draft picks. It is the best move for the organization and the players involved to part ways with JO and Jackson, plain and simple. I could careless if we get Harrington.

                              Someone might say getting Al makes JO expendable, but I think the whole idea of getting Al is to make Jermaine happy and surround him with his buddies.
                              *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X