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

Garnett: " I got to" (leave) if T-wolves don't improve

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

  • #16
    Re: Garnett: " I got to" (leave) if T-wolves don't improve

    Originally posted by Shade View Post
    Maybe the guy is already on the team.

    :granger:
    Oh, I would bet on it. But if we get Al his touches and minutes will be severely reduced. I would prefer we get more pieces to fit around Danny. Make it clear who we are building around. Ask yourself this: would we be getting Al Harrington for a pick while using the TE to absorb his contract if his name was John Smith and he had no connection to Indy at all? I'd prefer to get some backcourt help, that's all. Also, we need a backup center and a backup small forward.

    We can use the draft and the TE for this but of course, we probably won't and we will get Al and try to force him, JO, and Danny to play together.

    If it works and we don't give up a great pick for Al then I'll be the first to say that I'm wrong...and I'll be happy to be proved wrong, but I just think we can build this team back up in a better way. Around the right guys...not totally ignoring them.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Garnett: " I got to" (leave) if T-wolves don't improve

      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
      Oh, I would bet on it. But if we get Al his touches and minutes will be severely reduced. I would prefer we get more pieces to fit around Danny. Make it clear who we are building around. Ask yourself this: would we be getting Al Harrington for a pick while using the TE to absorb his contract if his name was John Smith and he had no connection to Indy at all? I'd prefer to get some backcourt help, that's all. Also, we need a backup center and a backup small forward.

      We can use the draft and the TE for this but of course, we probably won't and we will get Al and try to force him, JO, and Danny to play together.

      If it works and we don't give up a great pick for Al then I'll be the first to say that I'm wrong...and I'll be happy to be proved wrong, but I just think we can build this team back up in a better way. Around the right guys...not totally ignoring them.

      I think Danny and Al at the forward spots would be a great combo

      I agree that there are other needs that we need to address, but when we can solidfy our frontcourt for such a low price, why not do it?
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Garnett: " I got to" (leave) if T-wolves don't improve

        I'd like to have Al if only because he's a friend of JO and we could pass him on later if necessary...Ricky Davis is good player that never made the jump to become a great player...yet...and it's because he gets high too much...the Wolves are in need of a decent SF (Iguodala!) but more importantly another big body (they might as well re-sign the Kandi-man for cheap)


        and don't nobody say nothing about trading O'Neal for Garnett

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Garnett: " I got to" (leave) if T-wolves don't improve

          Originally posted by rexnom View Post
          How about them apples? My rebuild idea doesn't sound so bad now does it?
          Technically the Hornets drafted Kobe, not the Lakers.

          And the Spurs got extremely lucky. They got Robinson, but because of his naval committment they had to play without him. They sucked and got Sean Elliot in the draft to go with David the year he joined the team. And for one season in the midst of many great runs he got hurt for the entire season and they won the lottery to get Duncan.

          That ain't a plan, that's a fluke. Lose the lottery and it's Keith Van Horn leading them to a title...err...

          Kobe and Shaq were stuck just like the Pacers till Phil saved the day. And getting Shaq required clearing out tons of contracts to chase him as a FA, and then to add Kobe it required trading Vlade for a guy who was NOT drafted in the top 10. Kittles, Samaki Walker and Todd Fuller are players that went before Kobe. LA drafted Fisher with the 24th pick, and had the Hornets not handed them Kobe on a platter its possible/likely that the Lakers wouldn't have won a title even with Shaq.


          There's an immense difference between tanking and just rebuilding smartly.
          True, but rebuilding smartly doesn't require losing a lot of games. The Pacers already did it several times in the last 2 decades without going below 39 wins.

          All teams at the top of the NBA right now were mediocre teams before they missed the playoffs for one season or more to reload.
          Miami did draft Wade and he was the big star this year, but let's not pretend that the Shaq trade wasn't a monster factor, and one driven by a situation that realistically shouldn't have been available were it not for some petty bickering between Shaq and Kobe.

          Wade was on the Heat team that lost to the Pacers in 04. That version of the Heat was not title capable despite Wade already playing at a very high level at the time.

          And all of the bottom teams in the NBA missed the playoffs for a year or more and blew it trying to reload. Or has Atlanta NOT had top draft picks and signed a major FA in the last couple of seasons? How's that Bucks rebuild coming.

          Are we counting the Clippers as a top team, because by my accounts it was the TRADE for Brand and the signing of Cassell that put that team over the top, not a slew of picks and a monster FA signing.

          PHX - FA signing of Nash. Forget drafting Amare, he didn't even play this season. And when it was just their star picks, Amare and Marion, the Suns sucked.

          DAL - Neither Dirk nor Terry were drafted by the Mavericks. Dirk, like Kobe, was a draft night trade and also not an elite pick (he went 9 behind LaFrentz, Kandi, Robert Traylor and Jason Williams among others). In fact the Mavs drafted TRAYLOR, and got Millwaukee to give them Dirk AND Pat Garrity for Tractor.

          So how does Dallas' rebuild look without that deal, and how does Millwaukee look if they simply had kept their picks instead? Pokes a big hole in the "just suck and get a good draft pick theory" because the success and failure was based soley on a lucky deal. Dallas PASSED ON Dirk when they took Traylor instead. Think about that while praising their genius.

          The Mavs got Terry by trading the Hawks Walker and Delk (Henderson came with Terry). Again, if Atlanta doesn't screw up a trade Dallas gets shut out after failing to resign Steve Nash.

          And Dallas wasn't mediocre and then dipped for a year. They were a sub-30 win team for MANY years, including after they got Dirk.

          Dallas winning PCT up to around the time they got Dirk (1998):
          99-00 .488 (40 wins)
          98-99 .380 (19 wins)
          97-98 .244 (20 wins)
          96-97 .293 (24 wins)
          95-96 .317 (26 wins)
          94-95 .439 (36 wins)
          93-94 .159 (13 wins)
          92-93 .134 (11 wins)
          91-92 .268 (22 wins)

          Okay, so this is a team that sucked year after year after year, and could very likely have kept (been stuck with) Robert Traylor and Antoine Walker while losing Nash to PHX and they probably wouldn't have broken out of that losing mold.

          THAT'S the reality of the draft lottery and how well losing helps teams. You get better by good deals a lot quicker than by drafting in the top 5 year after year.

          Good mid-round picks and smart trades made the Pacers what they have been for the last 16-17 seasons.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Garnett: " I got to" (leave) if T-wolves don't improve

            Great post, Seth.
            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Garnett: " I got to" (leave) if T-wolves don't improve

              Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
              Great post, Seth.
              Thank you, sir. I know it's crazy a** long so I appreciate that someone took the time to read it. Once I started looking at examples I just kept thinking of or finding more and it ended up getting pretty long.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Garnett: " I got to" (leave) if T-wolves don't improve

                Hasn't he made this threat before?
                STARBURY

                08 and Beyond

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Garnett: " I got to" (leave) if T-wolves don't improve

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Thank you, sir. I know it's crazy a** long so I appreciate that someone took the time to read it. Once I started looking at examples I just kept thinking of or finding more and it ended up getting pretty long.

                  I thought that Dallas' teams of late would be a great example to build an argument around, but I decided not to respond. Good thing, too - you explained it much better than I would have. And you even included some other team's situations. Again, great post!
                  You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Garnett: " I got to" (leave) if T-wolves don't improve

                    One more reason why Dallas got better
                    (Nash) Traded by the Suns to the Dallas Mavericks for Martin Muursepp, Bubba Wells the draft rights to Pat Garrity and a first round draft choice in 1999 (June 25, 1998)
                    So they got Garrity for free and sent him right back out the door. They traded Traylor, Muursepp, Wells, and their 99 first round pick for DIRK and NASH.

                    Give me a F'n break. They literally stole a team from MIL and PHX.

                    Of course that 99 pick became Marion. And a in a bit of irony the player taken right after Marion was Terry by Atlanta. And of course the Suns would then get Nash back as a FA and pair him with Marion to finally win some games.

                    Some real Dallas perspective, just reflect on the Mashburn, Kidd, Jim Jackson era and how well that went. That was what they got by drafting. Oh, and Cherokee Parks.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Garnett: " I got to" (leave) if T-wolves don't improve

                      Seth, while I can see your logic, there are some things we need to recognize.

                      First of all, Cuban is willing to spend much more than the Simons.

                      Second, they have been very lucky through the draft. Devin Harris, Josh Howard, and Dirk Nowitzki were all three key guys for them that they drafted (and yes, I'm aware they trade for both Dirk and Devin, but that doesn't change the fact that they traded for the draft).

                      It's not like I'm saying complete rebuilding through the draft like Dallas's DDD days, we're almost there. We have a good core but we have to build on that core and not keep making the same mistake over and over again.

                      I don't even want to lose on purpose, I'm just saying find talent that fits better than Al and at the same time give time to the guys that need time. Otherwise they are never going to be ready come April.

                      Again, if getting Al becomes cheap, like Soup said, I have nothing against this. Basically, as long as no 1st rounder is involved I'll think we got him on the cheap and it'll be a no-brainer. In fact, if somehow, we avoid giving up that 2007 pick and instead give them a protected 2008 then I'll be happy too. All of this stems from my thinking that we can't get Al without overpaying somehow and IMO 2007 pick + TE + taking on two roster slots is overpaying.

                      I'd love for the Pacers to prove me wrong. I'd rather be wrong here than anything.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X