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 says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

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

  • Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/12122006...sey.htm?page=1

    THE ANSWER IS . . .
    HERE'S LOWDOWN ON ALLEN'S DESTINATION
    By Peter Vecsey
    NY Post

    December 12, 2006 -- UNLIKE so much of what's being upchucked over the internet regarding Proposition Allen Iverson, much of it oozing from ESPN's thin air, no guess-work follows, only facts. Meaning, there's definitely a chance a legit-bidding team or two may escape mention (how's that for covering one's flanks!).

    On the other hand, you can go to sleep knowing what you read below is real.

    But first let's dismiss, hopefully for the last time, any fantasies about the Knicks obtaining Iverson in any kind of deal that does or doesn't include Chris Webber. They are not, I repeat, any kind of participant in this situation.

    In fact, it wouldn't be surprising to learn Isiah Thomas is prohibited by Camp Cablevision boss James Dolan from cooking up any catastrophes that would cost the Knicks additional obligations past their current long-term luxury hole, or hamstring his eventual replacement any more than he'll be.

    The Bobcats, flaunting $13-to-$14 millions in prized cap space, are attempting to play facilitator for the 76ers. Management adamantly refuses to part with a single one of its precious young bloods, even Brevin Knight. Despite getting sacked 15 of 20 times, the third-year expansion franchise wisely is preaching patience and, at the same time, is prepared to assume a salary for a season (not Iverson's, though) for the right compensation - solid player, draft pick, money or all of the above.

    That's one option, a rather critical one, for Sixers president Billy King. It allows him to get several teams into the mix. That type of transaction, of course, could translate into Philly obtaining more attractive pieces than it can if only one team is involved.

    "I don't know who's putting this stuff out there," a team executive groaned in exasperation. "But it all forces me to call Chris Mullin."

    The Warriors are as active and aggressive in diving on Iverson's loose body as any team. Not to keep A.I. (and you thought Don Nelson was seriously about playing smallest) but to re-route his $49M, two-years-to-go debt along with at least one of their dead-weight contracts - Adonal Foyle, Troy Murphy or Mike Dunleavy. Jason Richardson is the guy King has coveted for some time. However, his surgically repaired knee is hurting (swollen) - and not only in the healing area.

    In talk last summer, the 76ers approached the Clippers about Iverson for Corey Maggette and Shaun Livingston. That same trade is on the table. The thing is, Livingston is utterly untouchable along with Elton Brand and Chris Kaman. If you see their names mentioned in any scenario, you know the writer is source-less. Everybody else is available.

    Keeping it out west, the Kings are offering Mike Bibby (who obviously is very appealing), I think. Would he really want to be united with his father, Henry, a Sixers assistant? Would he really want to be reunited with Webber? On the other hand, former Sixers John Salmons, Kenny Thomas and Corliss Williams celebrated their offensive freedom after distancing themselves from Iverson.

    It's not clear whether he is more or less appealing because he owns an early-out after this season. It's hard to say whether the 76ers would be happy if he walked away from his two-year ($13.5M/$14.5M) pact or would want a guarantee from him that he'll honor it.

    Meanwhile, the Timberwolves remain in the hunt, if only to appease Kevin Garnett, who's clamoring to play with Iverson. Yes, Randy Foye is desirable. But it's decidedly doubtful the 76ers want anything to do with Minnesota's myriad bad contracts belonging to Marko Jaric, Troy Hudson, Mark Blount, Mark Madsen, Mike James and Trenton Hassell. The Sixers want to dump salary, not reproduce it. Ricky Davis is conceivable because he has but one year ($6.8M) left after this.

    That leaves Indiana (offering Jamaal Tinsley and just about anyone except Jermaine O'Neal and Danny Granger) and Boston. Danny Ainge is determined to land himself an established veteran and Iverson is it. Paul Pierce is not available. Plenty of sacrificial Celtics are there for the 76ers' plucking, except Al Jefferson. It'd be stunning to think otherwise.

    That screeching in the background is Jerry West beseeching outgoing (?) owner Michael Heisley for permission to enter the chase.

    peter.vecsey@nypost.com
    -------------------------

  • #2
    Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

    THANK YOU LARRY AND DONNIE. Superstar available, you offer anyone but your two franchise guys...that's how you do it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

      It's a cute way of saying theyre being aggressive, since Al Harrington can't be traded right now anyway, and they have some BYC players.

      I don't think they can offer half of their players under league rules.

      ...and that likely means the Sixers would probably have to take Stephen Jackson in order to make the salaries match. Don't see it happening.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

        They can't trade Al.... for 3 more days.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          They can't trade Al.... for 3 more days.
          If the Sixers and the Pacers really want to make a trade and the trade involves Harrington - the two teams can certainly wait 3 days

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            If the Sixers and the Pacers really want to make a trade and the trade involves Harrington - the two teams can certainly wait 3 days
            Agreed.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

              Pacers have 5 players, of which Philly can grab 3 for AI:
              - Al Harrington
              - Stephen Jackson
              - Marquis Daniels
              - Jamaal Tinsley
              - Jeff Foster

              Maybe this should be made into a poll...

              Personally I'd offer JT, Jax & Daniels. I'm guessing Philly would prefer Quis, Foster & Al. Hopefully a compromise can be found with either Tinsley or Jackson being shipped (Tinsley+Al+Foster?).

              In any case - I'd do it. I like Iverson. He's not the ball hog he used to be (10th in the league in assists this season). He knows he's starting to decline, but he still "has it" when he needs to, like a real vet. A mature Iverson can carry a good team very far.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                Steven A. Smith was live on ESPN radio Mike & Mike show a little before 8 AM today and said the frontrunners are Golden State and then Boston. He didn't mention Indiana at all.
                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                  Just for the record - Steven A Smith was just on ESPN radio "Mike & Mike" and he never mentioned the Pacers.


                  Tom, you beat me to it, well at least I'll back you up.


                  Also for the record: I'd put the chances of the Pacers getting Iverson at about 5%, but then two days ago I would have said about 1%. What is more interesting to me is that the Pacers are apparently trying

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                    I think Pacers would be crazy to give up Foster right now.
                    The best we can offer is JT, Quis, Al.
                    This leaves us with a shorter rotation obviously, and some serious issues in several positions.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                      Wasn't it SAS who got it right about Ron for Peja?
                      Or was it Vecsey who broke it first (or was that just the trade demand)?
                      I dont remember...

                      Anyway - who is more reliable?
                      I know Vecsey has good inside information about the Pacers, but how about the rest of the league, or specifically - Philly?
                      Is SAS more credible cause he's a more public figure?

                      Or,

                      Are both of them being misinformed to create a smokescreen for the real action?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                        Originally posted by NPFII View Post
                        Wasn't it SAS who got it right about Ron for Peja?
                        Or was it Vecsey who broke it first (or was that just the trade demand)?
                        I dont remember...

                        Anyway - who is more reliable?
                        I know Vecsey has good inside information about the Pacers, but how about the rest of the league, or specifically - Philly?
                        Is SAS more credible cause he's a more public figure?

                        Or,

                        Are both of them being misinformed to create a smokescreen for the real action?


                        I consider Vescey beyond reproach in these matters. Keep in mind Vescey is only reporting that the Pacers are interested in Iverson and who the Pacers are offering . Vescey is not predicting the Pacers are going to get him.

                        I think Aldridge is also excellent. SAS is very hit and miss

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                          SAS is a Philly guy and he has sources there. He is probably more reliable on 76er issues than anything else, because he is pretty spotty on everyone else.

                          I'll give Vecsey credit for being the one to break the story that AI wanted out. Maybe he has the most inside stuff. His condescending writing style is tough to take, though.
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                            I dunno if this was posted before, but ...

                            Could the "stomach-flu" and other health problems the Pacers suddenly encountered have any relation to the AI trade?
                            Could it have been a showcase game of Tinsley? Granger? Baston? or ... Shawne Williams?
                            Consider this: Billy King loves Shawne Williams and would love to join him with Rodney Carney as the Sixers core for the next decade. He also likes Granger who was a steal at 17 and never had the supposed knee problems that kept him out of the lottery, and suddenly - the Pacers have cheap young talent to offer.

                            Shawne played great against Chicago and so did Tinsley & Granger.

                            To make the salaries work you still need to involve 2 of either Quis, Jax, Al or Foster, AND the Sixers would need to give up at least 2 players for roster spaces, and maybe a 2nd rounder to sweeten "aging Indiana"'s deal, but could that be the deal that's not only being talked about, but already setting the wheels in motion by sitting Al, Daniels, Jax & JO and giving for the first time in this season playing time to young Shawne Williams?

                            Tinsley+(Jax or Quis)+(Al or Foster)+(Granger or Williams) for AI+2 fillers+2nd rounder ?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                              The question is: are we really offering Harrington?

                              'Cause if we're not, and JO and Granger are also off the table, then we're not really making a serious run at AI.

                              I sincerely doubt (and hey, maybe I'm wrong) a package based around Tins/Jax/Foster comes even close to getting AI.

                              It seems more likely to me that Donnie is leaking info just to placate the fans and say, "hey, at least we're trying."
                              2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X