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

Can someone post Peter Vescey's column

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

  • Can someone post Peter Vescey's column

    For some reason I can't get to his column today, I did register but something is wrong.

    There is a Pacers mention.

    New York Post

  • #2
    Re: Can someone post Peter Vescey's column

    New York Post columnist Peter Vecsey (scroll down) (registration required): "At last count, the Wiz had seven offers for Kwame, several of them significant, which summarily erases the Knicks from contention on numerous scores. For some reason, they don't find Michael Sweetney and Jerome Williams ($6.6M/$7M/7.3M) all that appealing. Hearing aides inform me Washington GM Ernie Grunfeld can have his pick of Memphis' James Posey, Indiana's Fred Jones and the Lakers' Caron Butler. "

    I got this much, but I don't know if this is what you're looking for or if you're looking for more.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Can someone post Peter Vescey's column

      Here is the whole article Freddy for Brown, yeah right):


      BEHIND THE BENCH: Suprisingly, Knicks assistant coach and longtime Isiah Thomas friend Mark Aguirre isn't in the mix to be the team's new head coach, falling behind Bill Laimbeer, Larry Brown (inset right) and interim coach Herb Williams.
      Email Archives
      Print Reprint



      July 10, 2005 -- LAS VEGAS — Following closely on the market-set ting heels of Ray Allen (reclaimed by the Sonics for $80M over five years), Michael Redd (re-enlisted by the Bucks at $90M over six) and Larry Hughes (recruited by the Cavaliers for $70M over five), Joe Johnson is the very next free-agent guard to strike it very rich.
      Jerry Colangelo flew into town Friday from his waterfront summer home in Carmel, Calif., for the express purpose of handling the last-second negotiations. According to a source who doesn't believe what's learned in Vegas stays in Vegas they didn't go well for the Suns.

      Subsequently, agent Arn Tellem notified the team's CEO his client intends to sign an offer sheet with the Hawks. Come July 22, Phoenix will have 15 days to match once the $70M, five-year arrangement is in place.

      Unless the Suns' new ownership is steadfastly opposed to flirting with the luxury tax, much less being engulfed by it when Amare Stoudemire's pending max deal kicks in a year from now, how can the Suns afford not to match?

      Johnson became irreplaceable the moment Quentin Richardson was dealt to the Knicks for Kurt Thomas. It's commonly assumed Raja Bell (five years, starting at $4M) is being imported from Utah as an insurance policy in case Johnson is lost, but he's known more for his defense and nastiness than his offense. No way does Bell provide Johnson's versatility.

      Another reason for matching is the savings involved. By allowing the Hawks to do the paperwork, the Suns theoretically spend less (one year and two percentage points annually for roughly $15M) than had they signed Johnson themselves for the max-which, obviously, never was the game plan.

      Meanwhile, as much as the Wizards revere Hughes' all-around excellence (if you overlook his 29 percent from 3-point range and 62-game average attendance record over the last five years) and as badly as they wanted him to re-up, they should consider themselves lucky he turned down their last proposition of $12M per over six.



      Come on; they're already paying Antawn Jamison $13.8 and Gilbert Arenas $10.2M. How many non-centers/macho forwards can you overpay before your salary cap irrevocably resembles the Knicks? It's infinitely more economical (not that difficult, either) to use Kwame Brown in a sign-and-trade to get a big guard instead of squandering cash to make themselves look good to their fans and the media.

      At last count, the Wiz had seven offers for Kwame, several of them significant, which summarily erases the Knicks from contention on numerous scores. For some reason, they don't find Michael Sweetney and Jerome Williams ($6.6M/$7M/7.3M) all that appealing.

      Hearing aides inform me Washington GM Ernie Grunfeld can have his pick of Memphis' James Posey, Indiana's Fred Jones and the Lakers' Caron Butler.

      *

      Money had little to do with Nate McMillan choosing the Blazers over the Sonics. He signed a five-year guaranteed deal (the club owns an option for a sixth) for $25M. Seattle had four years at $18M on the table for over a month and, in the end, says a source, was prepared to match Portland's offer, but McMillan rejected the thought.

      "Nate's been unhappy about what's been going on for two years," disclosed one of his friends.

      "After he helped recruit Antonio Daniels on the basis he'd be given a legit chance to compete for the starting point job, he was told by management to play the young guys [Luke Ridnour, to name one] after the team got off to a slow start."

      As a result, the veterans began to look at McMillan funny; giving players — young or old — minutes they don't earn almost assures you of losing your team as well as any leverage you might've accrued. After the Sonics slouched into the lottery, McMillan fell into limbo. He had one year remaining on his contract, and team president Wally Walker decided against an extension.

      That was twice McMillan felt betrayed by management. Somehow he was able to conceal that resentment throughout last season's startling 52-win finish. But, given the chance to get even — and still stay close to his Northwest home of 18 years — it finally flashed to the surface.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Can someone post Peter Vescey's column

        [sarcasm]YAY![/sarcasm]

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Can someone post Peter Vescey's column

          I am convinced. Donnie shops at the neighbour hood Goodwill store for bargains. I would not mind trading Freddie for Kwame. This guy has the physical tools and hopefully a change of scenery(the successful Pacers franchise) will definitely shore up his mental strength. Even if it does not pan out, we have not lost much. Freddie Jones is good but will never be a star in this league.

          I agree with Vecsey on the Wizards dodging a bullet with Larry Huges rejecting their 6yr 72 million offer. Yeah, he has all the stats and the athletic ability but there is something about him that I do not like. He does not have a good stroke. He is good but not at that price.
          ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Can someone post Peter Vescey's column

            They are about now equal as far as trade value is concerned. I would
            hate to give up on Fred though. His 3 point shooting was pretty good before his
            hand went bad and you have to love the way he goes to the rim.
            Fred does have some mental stability which is a rare trait with this team.
            Kwame...not so much.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Can someone post Peter Vescey's column

              I think Kwame will follow in the long line of Washington big men who break out once they get out of there. However, what would we do with a poor-man's JO?
              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

              Comment

              Working...
              X