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

2004-03-02

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

  • 2004-03-02

    Who's opting out this summer?
    By Chad Ford
    NBA Insider
    Send an Email to Chad Ford Monday, March 1
    Updated: March 2
    11:04 AM ET

    Gary Payton is mad. He gave up a lot of money in an attempt to buy himself an
    NBA Championship in L.A. this season.

    So far, he doesn't feel like he's getting his money's worth. With Kobe already
    half-way out the door, the Mailman not delivering, Phil Jackson eyeing Jackson
    Hole and Shaq campaigning to take over Mitch Kupchak's job, the Lakers are no
    longer the hot, championship producing factory Payton thought they were when he
    decided to take a big pay cut last July.

    But that's not really Gary's issue. Winning is important. But it's not as
    important as playing time in the Glove's mind. Despite the fact that the Lakers
    have won nine out of their last 11, Payton's concern is ... well, Payton.
    Reminded that both he and Karl Malone knew there would be sacrifice, Payton
    said, "Not this kind of sacrifice."

    "Sacrifice in points, in touches. We wasn't sacrificing minutes and playing a
    role and try to do other things," he said. "I'm not playing the way I think I
    should be played. I can take not scoring as long as we're winning basketball
    games. But not me sitting on the bench and sitting there and don't know the
    reasons."

    Just what the Lakers need.

    Payton's not the only one with issues. Several other big-name NBA players are
    facing a big decision this summer. Should they take advantage of an opt out
    clause in their contract?

    Some do it because they need a change of scenery. Others do it to renegotiate a
    new, more lucrative contract. Regardless of the motivation, the existence of so
    many opt-out-clauses among the NBA's elite has the potential to wreak havoc on
    this summer's free-agent process.

    With the season dwindling down and potential free agents making their desires
    known, today Insider breaks down what the top 10 players with opt outs are
    thinking about their future ...

    Gary Payton, G, Lakers

    The skinny: Payton or Phil Jackson? That appeared to be the ultimatum this
    weekend when Payton acknowledged that he was unhappy with his role, playing time
    and the triangle offense. Payton knows he's standing on thin ice. Jackson has
    nine championships, all with the triangle offense, to Payton's zero with his
    coveted pick-and-roll. He knew when he signed up for this that the Lakers
    weren't changing their offense and that Shaq and Kobe were still looking at most
    of the touches every night.

    This just confirms what Insider wrote last Thursday . . . Payton (and most
    likely Malone) are gone this summer barring an NBA championship. With as many as
    six teams with significant cap room this summer, don't be surprised to see
    Payton jump ship to a team like San Antonio that can offer him a legit shot at
    the title, more money and more offensive freedom.

    Kobe Bryant, G, Lakers

    The skinny: The great free-agent debate of the summer. In 2000 it centered on
    Grant Hill and Tim Duncan. In 2001 we suffered through the Chris Webber
    sweepstakes. Last year the Jason Kidd "will he or won't he" debate lasted almost
    a full year. This year everything depends on Kobe. We know he'll opt out, if for
    no other reason, so that he can sign a more lucrative contract in L.A. But with
    numerous sources close to Bryant claiming his eyes are wandering, several teams,
    including the Clippers, Suns and possibly the Spurs and Nuggets, will pull out
    all the stops to woo Kobe away. Will he bolt? Money isn't the issue. In every
    scenario he makes more money in L.A. What's the appeal? A chance to escape the
    limelight (Phoenix, Denver), a chance to win a championship without Shaq (Suns,
    Spurs) or just to thumb his nose at the organization for a perceived lack of
    support during his ongoing legal challenges this year (the Clippers).

    Steve Nash, G, Mavs

    The skinny: Nash will opt out, but chances are he will stay in Dallas. Nash
    is one of the few guys in the NBA who is actually underpaid at the moment. By
    opting out, he's looking at a huge raise with his next long-term contract.
    Surely, Mark Cuban will throw a lucrative long-term contract at him to keep him
    in Dallas. If that's not enough for Nash, the Suns and Clippers are in desperate
    need of a point guard, and both teams would be willing to throw the cash his
    way.

    Antoine Walker, F, Mavericks

    The skinny: Walker may be the toughest to call. The talk in Dallas is that Don
    Nelson is frustrated and would be happy if Walker walked away this summer. If
    Walker opts out, he'll have to take a pay cut to move on. It's hard to imagine
    the Jazz, Nuggets, Clippers or Spurs throwing max money at him. Teams would be
    interested in the $8-9 million range, but not at the $14 million rate he's going
    for. Does he have a future in Dallas? It depends on how deep Cuban's pockets
    are. He already has Dirk Nowitzki, Michael Finely and Antawn Jamison locked up
    to max-type contracts. With Nash also looking for a big deal, can Cuban afford
    both? The most likely outcome? Walker doesn't opt out and becomes an
    unrestricted free agent in 2005. No use throwing away $14.6 million next season.

    Erick Dampier, C, Warriors

    The skinny: Dampier opting out of his huge contract was inconceivable
    last summer, but he's having the type of season that has caused him to
    reconsider. There are plenty of teams that need a big man, and if the Jazz or
    Nuggets show some interest, it may be his best and only chance to get out of the
    bay while he's still hot. The question really comes down to finances.
    Dampier makes a guaranteed $16.8 million over the next two seasons. If he can
    get a five-year, $40 million offer, he's going to bolt for the security. The
    fact that he's reportedly hired a new agent (Dan Fegan) probably means that
    Dampier is going to opt out. Does he already has a deal in place with another
    team?

    Marcus Camby, C, Nuggets

    The skinny: Camby's going to be a free agent one way or the other. Camby and the
    Nuggets tried to hammer out a contract extension, to no avail, last summer. Now
    he's faced with an unusual dilemma. If he doesn't exercise his opt-out, the last
    year of his contract ($7.75 million) becomes unguaranteed. That means that the
    Nuggets can waive him without owing him a penny. It sounds like the Nuggets want
    him back, but will Camby be lured back to the Garden by Isiah Thomas? That's the
    talk around the league at the moment.

    Karl Malone, F, Jazz

    The skinny: Any chance of Karl going back to the Jazz? They may have a better
    shot at the championship than the Lakers next season. The answer is probably no.
    A better fit may be Dallas, which would love to throw its mid-level exception
    his way if he's willing to play for that. The only concern with Malone in Dallas
    is playing time. With so many trees, Malone knows his minutes will be sparse
    there. Would a team like the Spurs, Timberwolves or Rockets be a better fit?

    Latrell Sprewell, SG, T-Wolves

    The skinny: Spree is having an amazing season, but the chances of him
    opting out are very slim. Spree's due to make $14.6 million next season. There's
    no way he gets that in the open market . . . nor is he going to be able to get
    an extension anywhere near those numbers. Enjoy it while it lasts.

    Stephen Jackson, G/F, Hawks

    The skinny: Jackson is one of the better bargains in the league. He turned down
    a offer from the Spurs this season to play for $1 million in Atlanta. That
    really worked out. Now Jackson is declaring that he's opting out again in search
    of a more lucrative deal. Don't expect the Hawks to pay his demands (which will
    probably be inflated by a strong showing at the end of the season now that the
    team's talent level has depleted). Who would?

    Jerome James, C, Sonics

    The skinny: Would James, who averages a measly 15.3 mpg and 5.2 ppg, really give
    up a guaranteed $5.5 million next year? As absurd as that sounds, James is
    frustrated with his lack of playing time on the Sonics and his agent feels that
    he'll have several serious suitors willing to come close to matching the money
    he already makes in Seattle. The Grizzlies are one of the teams that appears to
    be interested, but there will be others, regardless of his production, before
    too long.

    Around the League

    Thomas to ink extension? One player who looks like he won't have to opt out of
    his contract this summer is Knicks forward Kurt Thomas. The two sides are
    reportedly close to hammering out a four-year, $30 million contract extension
    that will lock up Thomas through the 2008-09 season.

    If Isiah goes ahead and inks Thomas to the extension, he's basically painted
    himself into a corner -- ala Scott Layden -- without much hope of getting out of
    it.

    Take a look at the Knicks' guaranteed contracts over the next few years.

    Othella Harrington, Dikembe Mutombo and Cezary Trybanski come off the books in
    the summer of 2005 -- giving Thomas around $10 million in expiring contracts to
    play with during the season. He might as well try to turn those into one more
    expensive player. Having all three contracts coming off the payroll only drops
    the Knicks down to $92 million in payroll.

    That numbers goes even higher if you figure in the fact that Thomas is sure to
    use his full mid-level exception ($5.5 million) next season.

    Tim Thomas, Penny Hardaway, Nazr Mohammed, Moochie Norris and Frank Williams are
    done in the summer of 2006. Even with those three big deals coming off the
    books, the Knicks will likely be eight to 10 million over the cap -- meaning no
    significant free-agent signings.

    The Knicks aren't looking at any real cap room until the summer of 2007, when
    Allan Houston and Shandon Anderson finally come off the books, assuming the
    Knicks don't re-sign guys like Thomas, Mohammed and Williams.

    That type of roster security is great, but with the Knicks losing eight of their
    last nine, you have to wonder whether Isiah's extreme makeover of the Knicks is
    going to take. If it doesn't . . . Knicks fans are going to be forced to stare
    at an ugly team for a long, long time.

    Waiver Wire Work: Teams had until March 1st to waive players in time for them to
    still be eligible for a playoff roster on another team. Only five significant
    players got the axe before the deadline. The Hawks let Dion Glover go and he
    quickly signed on with the Raptors. The other four players, the Celtics' Vin
    Baker, the Spurs' Ron Mercer, the Wizards' Brevin Knight and the Raptors' Lonny
    Baxter, are still looking for a home.

    Baker has been talking to two teams seriously -- the Heat and the Knicks. The
    Raptors have also shown interest and Baker is expected to meet with them before
    making a final decision. Over the weekend ESPN.com's Marc Stein reported that
    Heat president Pat Riley was confident that the Heat would land Baker. However,
    the N.Y. Post is reporting today that the Knicks will sign Baker either
    Wednesday or Thursday.

    Mercer's rep, which has been plummeting ever since he was shipped out of Boston
    when he asked for the max, took another major hit when the Spurs waived him. "If
    you can't fit into a class organization like that on a team that's winning," one
    GM said, "where do you fit? He has talent, but clearly his attitude is an
    issue."

    The two teams with the most interest appear to be the Nets and Pistons. The Nets
    want some insurance in the backcourt with everyone ailing. The Pistons, who
    traded away their back-up two guard, Bob Sura, to get Rasheed Wallace, have been
    pursuing Mercer for some time.

    Baxter is expected to be claimed off waivers by the Wizards, according to a
    report in the Washington Post.

    No word yet on whether anyone will have an interest in Knight, who averaged 4.3
    ppg and 3.2 apg in Washington.

    Does Ainge want to tank? For those of you who wrote in skeptical about the whole
    idea of team actually tanking the season, I give you Celtics president Danny
    Ainge and head coach John Carroll.

    When the Boston Globe asked Carroll whether the Celtics would be better off
    losing the last 20 games of the season, here was his response. "From Danny's
    perspective, that would be the best thing you could do, no question," Carroll
    said. "It'd be great to have the lowest pick to get the best player available. I
    understand his position. But he understands it's a two-sided coin."

    The stakes are especially high for the Celtics. If they end up as an eighth seed
    in the East, they'll likely have the 14th pick in the draft. If they slip to the
    ninth position and barely miss the playoffs, they'll likely pick eighth. If they
    let the Cavs, Heat and Sixers pass them in the standings, even by one game,
    they'd be looking at the sixth pick in the draft.

    "It's a huge difference," Ainge conceded. "You're not just talking one or two
    spots. It could be seven or more."

    Asked if he was conflicted, Ainge said, "I'm not torn. If the guys win, they're
    happy and I'm happy for them. If they don't, there's hope also. But what's most
    important to me is to see the team improve in the way we play and the
    development of the young players. That's critical. I think if our young players
    are helping us to win, then that, to me, is great. We can't go out there and try
    to win at all costs and not develop the younger players and our running style as
    well."

    Wade or Hinrich? I got a lot of angry e-mails on Monday because of my assertion
    that Kirk Hinrich was turning into the best player not named LeBron or Carmelo
    in the draft class of 2003. What about the Heat's Dwyane Wade, who's having a
    stellar season in Miami this year?

    It's true that Wade has been phenomenal and his numbers post all-star break
    (19.3 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 4.3 apg on 44 percent shooting) are great. But Hinrich's
    post all-star numbers (17.4 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 7.4 apg on 46 percent shooting from 3)
    are better in every category but points scored. Considering that Hinrich is much
    more of a true point guard than Wade, you'd expect his numbers to be better.
    What really stands out about Hinrich is the great rebounding numbers and 3-point
    shooting as of late. Readers were right to bring Wade's name into the mix . . .
    both players have had enormously successful rookie seasons. The fact that Wade
    has already missed 18 games this season and looks to be out another week during
    the Heat's playoff run hurts Wade just a bit. I just think Hinrich has been a
    tiny bit better since the break.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

Working...
X