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

Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

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

  • Re: Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

    Originally posted by bulldog View Post

    As far as chemistry, winning cures all, and I think that Bulls team would flat out win a lot of games. Sure, Skiles and AI would but heads a little bit, but that's OK as long as they're winning games. There's a chance it could all go to hell for them, but I'll tell you this: no matter how bad things get, AI will always go out and play hard, and if you take that approach to the NBA, you will get wins.

    Perfect fit for Chicago.
    Skiles and AI would butt heads more than a little. Wallace, AI, and Skiles are clearly combustible. I don't think that Chicago will go for AI. Skiles won't even let Wallace wear a head band . Do you think Skiles will tolerate all the AI stuff?

    Comment


    • Re: Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
      Scott's fact filled posts were about Bonzi Wells.
      Good point, as I sit here red-faced. Bonzi Wells, Iverson, Rose... are at the bottom of my list, in that order.

      But thanks for the correction. Sorry, Scott.

      Comment


      • Re: Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

        I just read this entire thread from start to finish....and my IQ has dropped >100 pts for doing so.

        Like him or not, AI is one HUGE draw at the gate and at the sovenier (sp) stand. ANY trade for AI begins with JO or it does not even start. Simple economics. Money talks and that's that.

        For the record, I have mellowed over the years re: Ivy...he was the one player that did not quit during the Olympics and I said then I was cutting him slack from that day on. That does not mean I want him on the team. If I'm moving JO I want younger and more team oriented players than Ivy. I think we can get more and more complete players for JO.

        It's a trite cliche I know but I'm going to use it anyway.......

        There is an I in Iverson, and it ALWAYS comes first.
        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

        Comment


        • Re: Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

          I would love to get AI, but I would be shocked if it happens.

          I guarantee if we got him, the post game threads would be filled with quotes like "Wow, we got such a steal. I never really realized how special this guy is". As has been said before in this thread, winning cures everything. I think JO and CO want to win so bad and so does AI. That would be a ton of talent, and talent in its prime on our team, and you can't pass on that. I believe they would figure out a way to play together because of the stage of their careers that they are at.

          But, I'm not getting my hopes up.

          Comment


          • Re: Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

            Jay, I agree that AI has shown improved attitude. BUT so has Jackson, doesn't seem to matter to local fans.

            AI skipped the fan night game at the end of last season and now is in the trade demand mode ala Ron last year. You either see it as the organization really is messed up and he should want out, or he is not being very mature in dealing with his unhappiness.

            I get why you see it as a possible good gamble, a fresh situation to get him going again. But what if it is his attitude that has kept them down?


            I don't get how fans could ride JO or Jack for taking too many shots and then celebrate getting AI.

            I like AI's game, but then I also happen to feel pretty decent about most of the Pacers main players. The guards aren't AI, but they aren't the big money players, that's JO and AL. I really like what those 2 have done this year, so to me a lot of this is "what's the problem and is it anywhere near as bad as Philly's situation?"

            AI is going to cost a team A LOT. Not money, but salary I mean. You get him if you don't have a reliable huge money star, same as KG. If you have a bunch of mid-level talent and no big star (as Miami saw themselves before the Shaq deal) then you trade.

            I don't think JO is quite at that level and I don't think AL is playing below his contract to warrant a move.

            Jack and Tins for AI? Does that work and is Philly interested? That's about as close as you can get to a sensible deal, and it still pulls a bench guy up to SG or PG starter - Rawle or Saras or Quis.

            It's not awful, it's just risky and I don't see the Pacers in a situation where they need to think risk just yet.

            Comment


            • Re: Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

              Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
              I just read this entire thread from start to finish....and my IQ has dropped >100 pts for doing so.

              Like him or not, AI is one HUGE draw at the gate and at the sovenier (sp) stand. ANY trade for AI begins with JO or it does not even start. Simple economics. Money talks and that's that.

              For the record, I have mellowed over the years re: Ivy...he was the one player that did not quit during the Olympics and I said then I was cutting him slack from that day on. That does not mean I want him on the team. If I'm moving JO I want younger and more team oriented players than Ivy. I think we can get more and more complete players for JO.

              It's a trite cliche I know but I'm going to use it anyway.......

              There is an I in Iverson, and it ALWAYS comes first.
              Not necessarily. Does any Sixers/Celtics trade start with Paul Pierce? Does any Sixers/TWolves trade start with Kevin Garnett?

              AI has DEMANDED to be traded, so the Sixers are working from a point of weakness here (as well all know too well from first-hand experience). They won't get another franchise player in return for him.

              With that said, any trade with the Pacers would definitely have to include Granger, IMO, and possibly Al as well.

              Comment


              • Re: David Aldridge | Iverson can be dealt if right cards played

                Originally posted by bulldog View Post

                Are we really going to have to spend the next three years going against AI in Chicago and Lebron in Cleveland. I'm a little worried.
                Why are you worried?

                You've got a non athletic, very unmotivated at times, congenitally slow starting, worst shooting (in the NBA) team, more suited to playing 90's BRUTE BB rather than the athletic BBALL of the day. Oh, and did I mention that NEXT YEAR while teams are getting RICH off that incredibly loaded draft, you won't care
                cause you have Baby AL.

                Now, that's the way to run a franchise.

                And, people on this board are actually arguing against acquiring a player that just might make the Pacers an enjoyable team to watch ---not to mention a BETTER team. Hey, the Knicks are more entertaining.

                Gee, we wouldn't want to give up Danny, in any deal. Cause, he's got STAR written all over him. Sure............

                And we wouldn't want to make JO what he really is: a SECOND OPTION.

                Problem here, is that the Larry Bird player evaluation skillset seems to have run amuck on the board.

                Comment


                • Re: Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

                  Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                  I just read this entire thread from start to finish....and my IQ has dropped >100 pts for doing so.

                  Like him or not, AI is one HUGE draw at the gate and at the sovenier (sp) stand. ANY trade for AI begins with JO or it does not even start.
                  Gee, how can an IQ go in the hole? Well, it's your word and I don't doubt it. (giggle, giggle, snort)

                  Regarding JO, I disagree with your contention that talks begin with JO or they don't even start. For one we could be part of a three team trade.

                  One trade that I've thought of that does involve JO would be if they included Dalembert. Say AI and Dale, for JO and Tins.

                  Of course if that happened we would probably have to look for a new home because Able likes both those Pacers. He would have a fit.

                  I think we would be giving up to much though. Philly's having the fire sale not us. I would want a 1st rounder too, which would probably break the deal. Maybe not if it wasn't next years.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

                    Some are missing the fact that Philly has a lost of ton of leverage by this becoming a public ordeal.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

                      Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                      Some are missing the fact that Philly has a lost of ton of leverage by this becoming a public ordeal.
                      I guess everything will fall on whether Billy King ( or is it Knight?....I always get those 2 mixed up ) is as good of a GM as DW is and whether he will be able to be patient enough to sit it out to swing an "Artest for Peja" type deal.

                      The Sixers have to pull a 1st round pick out of this....but won't get one given the position they are in. I would guess...at best....they can hope for the 2nd best player on the team.....or a small # of prospects with some 2 or 3 year overpaid contracts.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

                        Yeah, look at the offers on RealGM. There's no way Philly's gonna get a big time All-Star in return for AI. He's not only 30, but an old 30, he makes a ton of cash, has an iffy offcourt attitude, and has demanded a trade. Some decent contracts and a decent pick/prospect is most likely what Philly will be looking for. I love Quis, but he's no AI, and Croshere's contract sure would've been attractive to Philly. As a matter of fact, I've heard Dallas wants him, and if they do get him, expect Austins expiring to be a big part of the deal.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

                          If King is smart (that's an "if"), he'll wait a month if he wants any thing close to equal value in return. I think if we'd forced the issue with Ron a couple weeks after he asked to be traded, we'd have gotten someone half as good as Stojakovic.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

                            This team can stay as it is and be average or roll the dice and trade for AI and be very competitive or possibly even worse. That's what AI can mean. Based on this team's struggles I would trade for AI for anyone other than JO and reluctantly Granger. Everyone else is chopped liver.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

                              According to two reports on the Real GM wiretap, both Denver and Dallas are allegedly out of the Iverson Sweepstakes. Denver was the favorite, so it'd be big news if they were out of the running.

                              This is definitely forcing the 76ers hand. The only teams that would likely want Iverson are the teams that feel he'd put them over the top into contender. And now with Minnesota, Dallas, and Denver all allegedly out of the running, that leaves very few teams left meaning less pull for the 76ers in any possible deal.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vecsey: Iverson demands to be traded (mentions Pacers)

                                I guess everything will fall on whether Billy King ( or is it Knight?....I always get those 2 mixed up ) is as good of a GM as DW is and whether he will be able to be patient enough to sit it out to swing an "Artest for Peja" type deal.
                                Isn't King one of the worst GM's in the league? Look what he's done over the past few seasons (from Bill Simmons' Atrocious GM Summit):

                                Just look at what I've done in Philly: Since we made the 2001 Finals, I gave Mutombo a $68 million extension even though he could have been, like, 48 years old for all we knew. I gave $35.5 million to Aaron McKie. I gave $29 million to Eric Snow. I gave $18 million to Greg Buckner. I gave $40 million to Kenny Thomas and $25 million to Brian Skinner. I gave $25 million to Kyle Korver and $60 million to Sam Dalembert last summer. That's $300 million of contracts to guys who were either on the decline or never that good in the first place. Plus, I traded for other bad contracts, guys like Keith Van Horn, Glenn Robinson, Kevin Ollie, you name it. And then, last February, the pinnacle -- dumping three bad contracts for C-Webb, who everyone thought couldn't be traded because of his contract and because he ran with a limp. Now we have an aging team built around two past-their-prime stars and our cap space is killed through 2008. And we completely wasted Iverson's prime, when he was one of the best players of his generation.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X