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

Why should we trade JO?

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

    Why should we trade JO?

    I don't post very often, but i'm a very avid fan and i read a lot. but forgive me because this is a lot to get off my chest:

    what's happened, if it isn't obvious, is unfortunate for us and JO for a number of reasons. I keep wanting to ask myself, why should we trade JO? Why do we have to? There are multiple answers to this question, assuming we do trade JO for lesser value, (which, if we trade him, is inevitable) so why do it?


    First off, JO and Tins are really the only players left from the core of our last ECF team. So we've proved two things: that the group we blew up couldn't do it (or maybe they could but Artest ruined everything); and that we can't put a contending team around the JO and Tinsley tandem.



    I tend to blame all of this on Bird (and maybe a little on Donnie, depending upon who was making what decisions), who happens to be my favorite NBA player of all-time behind Reggie. Sure, it's easy to blame Artest; but the fact of the matter is that Artest's ruining our team from the inside was just a matter of time. I'll even agree that although there were signs of Artest's instability, there was absolutely never any way Bird or anyone could have known Artest would run up in Detroit's stands one year and then demand a trade in the middle of the next year. But lots of things happen where there was previously no reason to predict it happening. Still, the bottom line is that Larry made those calls. Larry made the call to stick by Artest through it all, and even though I myself thought it was the right decision at the time, it ultimately proved to be a wrong decision. Really wrong.

    When anyone says that getting rid of Tinsley and JO means that we really start new, they are wrong. They are wrong because its simply not true. It should be true, but it isn't. Somehow, Larry Legend has put us in a way, way worse spot than we should be in. We could be sitting here, out of the playoffs, with our old roster and a potential lottery pick. Instead, we take on the contracts of two totally overpaid, untradeable commodities in Dunleavy and Murphy and by getting rid of Harrington, we let this year's first rounder go for nothing.


    At first, I was really eager to move JO. But I just don’t see us getting equal value for him. In fact, I don’t see any trade possible that Larry will make that won’t put us in a worse position. I still think that there are a few players who we could acquire through trades or free agency that would allow us to keep Jermaine and be immensely better. The two off the top of my head would be Chauncey Billups and Shawne Marion. Now I don’t know their contract situations off the top of my head, but I’m pretty sure both of them are close to being out or are wanting out and I think either of these players would make JO immensely better.


    What we absolutely should not do, in my opinion, is trade Jermaine for a couple of mediocre players and a project or two (Odom, Bynum, #19). Nothing against Odom. In fact, if there was a way to get Odom here while keeping JO, I’m all for it. But I don’t see how getting Odom and Bynum at the cost of our franchise player makes us a better team than we our now with JO still here. In fact, I think it puts us in a much tougher position. At least while we are in the East and we have JO, we know we are only one or two players/scorers away from a contender.


    What I’m willing to do as a loyal fan, however, is let the Pacers trade Jermaine to the Lakers for nothing (or Bynum and nothing), but have them take on the contracts of Murphy, Tinsley, and Dunleavy (any two will do, really). Then, and only then, will we really be able to start fresh (isn’t it scary to think of what Bird could do then?). But that will probably never happen, so don’t trade JO unless we get rid of one or two of these huge contracts that we’ve dug ourselves a hole with.
    This is only my opinion. Please hold it against me.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Why should we trade JO?

    The biggest reason why I think we should trade JO this summer: I truly believe he is physically breaking down and his trade value will only decrease the next few years as he becomes more injury prone and less athletic.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Why should we trade JO?

      He will never be as valuable to us as he is now relative to the Lakers situation. As for any other team or scenario - meh.
      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Why should we trade JO?

        we'll probably trade J.O. for some European scrub & a training table for David Craig
        Come quietly or there will be... trouble.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Why should we trade JO?

          because JO sucks obviously...he wants to win and he can't do it here with this team. So we give em to the lakers for that all star andrew bynum. Bynum > JO
          Plus he's sooooo injury prone. And i mean he's disgruntled and asking for trades and things. That means we help him out because it's all about him and making the lakers better! We can't have the leagues darling in kobe bryant upset! NO WAY!
          "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Why should we trade JO?

            Originally posted by clemdogg View Post
            [COLOR=black]What I’m willing to do as a loyal fan, however, is let the Pacers trade Jermaine to the Lakers for nothing (or Bynum and nothing), but have them take on the contracts of Murphy, Tinsley, and Dunleavy (any two will do, really). Then, and only then, will we really be able to start fresh (isn’t it scary to think of what Bird could do then?). But that will probably never happen, so don’t trade JO unless we get rid of one or two of these huge contracts that we’ve dug ourselves a hole with.
            Unfortunately, you can't trade JO's nearly 20 mil salary and the other 20+ million salary you want to trade without getting similar salary back.

            Might as well deal with reality: All the problems can't be solved in one trade or in one year. Every team also has bad contracts, it's the nature of the beast.

            The answer for the Pacers might be to commit to rebuild with young talent and draft picks in the next couple of years...this means playing young players and fielding a team that will probably not be very good.

            Trade JO and Jamaal when the offer is right, doesn't matter if it's in the same trade or separately...those other two bad contracts you are agonizing over will become short contracts eventually and take care of themselves.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Why should we trade JO?

              ClemDogg, ABAdays and sixthman;

              All 3 of you have hit the mark dead on!

              Ever since this JO trade rumor w/the Lakers started, I've wondered one thing: "Why would JO want to do it?"

              You see, it really makes no sense to me whatsoever why JO would even consider going from one youthful team that didn't make the post-season to another youthful team that barely made it on the efforts of one future HOFer All-Star (albeit one w/an over inflatted ego, Mr. Bryant ).

              Now, I think I understand the sense of urgency from mgmt's perspective. If I have JO's contract situation clearly understood, he's in the option year of his contract of which he has 3 yrs remaining. IF he opts out, that would effectively make him an unrestricted FA, which means he could sign with any team out there. Mgmt is, therefore, concerned that should he bolt they'd be left w/nothing. At least in attempting to negotiate a trade, the Pacers could get something of value for him and not find themselves in a situation they almost found themselves in when Peja opt'd out at the end of last season. (Getting the trade exemption (TE) from the Hornets saved their butts somewhat, but in the short term they still lost out by giving up Harringon and this year's 1st round draft pick.) So, if I have a clear understanding of JO & mgmt's situation, that's the root of where all these ramblings stem from.

              Again, other than JO and Kobe reportedly being very good friends, I really don't see why JO would leave here to go there considering both teams are in effect..."retooling"?

              Thoughts anyone?
              Last edited by NuffSaid; 06-01-2007, 02:44 PM.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Why should we trade JO?

                i think you make a really good point buck and i would have to agree with you there. its also crossed my mind before that bynum could be the next oneal himself...up and coming high-schooler who has shown potential who we acquired in a remodeling trade. i havent seen bynum play nearly enough, however, to make any of those kinds of assessments. but certainly, jo has experienced some wear and tear the last couple of years.
                This is only my opinion. Please hold it against me.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Why should we trade JO?

                  Because the team isn't very good and he will opt out of his contract after next season if we don't make the playoffs again?

                  This may be the last time that he has trade value also, if he misses a lot of games next year with injury.
                  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

                  Previous template Next
                  Working...
                  X