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

  • #46
    Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    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
    What's that, Vecsey might be way off on a wild rumor guess? Shocking.


    Is this what amounts to reporting from CNNsi now? They are getting their "odds" for where AI will go from an Internet Betting Website?

    Why not actually do some reporting ( or at least better speculation ) from your reporters?

    Geez....
    QFT!

    That's not a report about where AI might go, that's a report about the state of internet gambling. Those are the only facts such a story contains. Awful.

    Can you imagine your doctor coming in and telling you that you have cancer...and then following it up with "the latest bets at an online site are that you have 6 months and we shouldn't do radiation even". Sorry doc, I'm gonna need both a first and second opinion to go with that. :shakehead

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

      After reading this, I don't think Minnesota really wants AI:

      Wolves: We can't afford Iverson
      Rumors, fueled by Iverson imposter, featured deal here

      From staff reports
      Allen Iverson and the Philadelphia 76ers appear headed toward a bitter parting.

      But Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor said he won't end up in Minnesota, despite a flood of rumors Friday night that said otherwise.

      "No trade," Taylor said during the Wolves' 110-103 victory over Utah on Friday night at Target Center. "It isn't that I don't like him. Just money-wise, it wouldn't work out."

      Speculation heated up the past couple of days about where Iverson could end up. The Wolves were at the top of the list of possible destinations.

      ESPN reporter Jim Gray announced on the air that Iverson told him in a telephone interview Friday that he was heading to Minnesota. He came back on the air soon after to say that he had been "duped," admitting, "I was talking to an imposter."

      Iverson's 11-year career in Philadelphia took another tumultuous turn Friday when the former NBA most valuable player hinted that a trade might be best after the Sixers sent him home and ruled him out of their next two games.

      "As hard as it is to admit, a change may be the best thing for everyone," Iverson said. "I hate admitting that because I love the guys on the team and the city of Philadelphia. I truly wanted to retire a 76er."

      "We'll trade him," Sixers chairman Ed Snider said Friday night. "At a certain point, you have to come to grips with the fact that it's not working. He wants out, and we're ready to accommodate him."

      Snider said Iverson has "probably" played his last game with the Sixers, ending a career that placed him with Julius Erving, Charles Barkley and Wilt Chamberlain among the team's greats.

      "I think it's time for him to move on, for us to move on and find out where everything stands," Snider said. "I really didn't see it coming because Allen says all the right things."

      In a surprising turn of events, Iverson was banished by the club and didn't play Friday against Washington. Team President Billy King said the move was not a suspension and Iverson's future would be re-evaluated after tonight's game at Orlando.

      King and coach Maurice Cheeks said Iverson was sent home because he did not practice on Thursday and left Wednesday's blowout loss at Chicago with back spasms. However, the move to bench their captain comes with Iverson's name swirling in heavy trade rumors.

      King would not say before the Sixers' game against the Wizards whether Iverson had asked for a trade or if he was actively trying to trade the four-time NBA scoring champion. Snider confirmed that Iverson did ask this week to be dealt.

      "Allen was not able to practice yesterday because of the back, and today Mo made a decision not to play him tonight or tomorrow," King said. "We told him to just take the night off and tomorrow."

      Iverson told a different story. Iverson, whose off-court behavior and coaching clashes often overshadowed his gritty, highlight-reel play, released a statement through agent Leon Rose stating that he told the Sixers he was healthy enough to play.

      Iverson said he was told not to participate in shootaround and instead watched from the sideline. He joined the Sixers in the huddle, then was told by Cheeks not to come to the Wachovia Center.

      "In my entire career, even the doctors haven't been able to tell me not to play," Iverson said. "I've played through injury and illness. I think everyone knows how much I love being out on the court, competing and winning. That's why it was so disheartening to be told that I couldn't play, knowing that I was ready. It hurt even more to be told not to come at all."

      Iverson, who leads the league with a 31.7-point average, left Wednesday night's 121-94 loss at Chicago in the second half, complaining of the spasms, and did not practice Thursday. The Sixers are 5-13, have lost six straight and 13 of 15 overall.

      "This season has been very frustrating for everyone," Iverson said. "We've lost 12 of 14 games and nothing seems to be working. I have expressed my frustration to my teammates, however, I have continued to give 100 percent night in and night out. Apparently, it hasn't been enough to help our team win."

      Even with the Sixers sinking toward another lottery-bound season, Snider said Cheeks and King's jobs were safe.

      Cheeks said he expected Iverson to finish the season in Philadelphia.

      Iverson reportedly was nearly dealt last offseason to Boston.

      This report includes information from the Associated Press.

      http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinci...l/16199928.htm
      I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

        Originally posted by NPFII View Post
        Pacers have 5 players, of which Philly can grab 3 for AI:
        - Al Harrington
        - Stephen Jackson
        - Marquis Daniels
        - Jamaal Tinsley
        - Jeff Foster
        Add Sarunas Jasikevicius to that list. In fact Sarunas fits what the rumor is that Philly wants whereas the rest don't. If they can't get young players or contracts that expire after this year they want contracts that expire in after next years like Webber's does.

        They of course would take Foster so we would need a big man back. So I could see Philly throwing Hunter into the deal. If it were me I wouldn't take Sarunas though.

        This is what I would do;

        Outgoing

        Al Harrington
        6-9 SF from St. Patrick's (HS)
        18.6 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 3.1 apg in 36.6 minutes

        Jamaal Tinsley
        6-1 PG from Iowa State
        9.3 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 5.0 apg in 26.7 minutes

        Jeff Foster
        6-11 C from Southwest Texas State
        5.9 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 0.8 apg in 25.1 minutes

        Shawne Williams
        6-9 from Memphis
        No games yet played in 2005/06

        Incoming

        Allen Iverson
        6-0 PG from Georgetown
        33.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 7.4 apg in 43.0 minutes

        Steven Hunter
        7-0 C from DePaul
        6.1 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 0.3 apg in 19.1 minutes
        Change in team outlook: +5.3 ppg, -12.1 rpg, and -1.2 apg.

        Successful Scenario
        Due to Indiana and Philadelphia being over the cap, the 25% trade rule is invoked. Indiana and Philadelphia had to be no more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
        ---------------

        I don't think the Pacers will get AI, I think he will go to GS or Boston, with Charlotte maybe being part of a three team trade.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

          Before anyone gets too dismissive of Vecsey, he broke the Artest for Peja deal last year.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

            Apparently, Sacramento is now out of the running:

            http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...4o&refer=home#

            NBA's Kings Won't Trade for Allen Iverson, Owner Maloof Says

            By Scott Soshnick

            Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Remove the Sacramento Kings from the list of possible new teams for Allen Iverson, a former Most Valuable Player who has demanded a trade from the Philadelphia 76ers.

            ``We're staying away,'' Kings co-owner Joe Maloof said in a telephone interview. ``We're not going forward.''

            The Kings were among a handful of teams that publicly disclosed an interest in the National Basketball Association's leading scorer when the 31-year-old guard's trade demand was made public last week.

            Maloof didn't say why the Kings had changed their mind.

            Iverson, a four-time NBA scoring champion, rejected a proposed trade that would have sent him to the Charlotte Bobcats, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

            Among the teams interested in Iverson are the Boston Celtics, Indiana Pacers, Minnesota Timberwolves and Denver Nuggets, the newspaper said.

            Iverson joined the 76ers as the first pick in the 1996 draft. He led Philadelphia to the NBA Finals in 2001, when the seven-time All-Star was named the league's MVP.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

              So, if we're to believe the writing on the wall, the Celtics, Nuggets and Pacers are the only teams really making a push at this point?

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                Originally posted by Mushmouth View Post
                So, if we're to believe the writing on the wall, the Celtics, Nuggets and Pacers are the only teams really making a push at this point?
                I hear it's between Golden State and Boston. I think the Pacers only get in the mix if those teams won't give up the young guys Philly wants.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                  Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                  I hear it's between Golden State and Boston. I think the Pacers only get in the mix if those teams won't give up the young guys Philly wants.
                  It seems highly unlikely that Golden State will give up Ellis, because he seems like Iverson Lite right now, and he's a decade younger. Boston, with good reason, seems to be "it" in Boston for their future. Not to mention, I see no reason Philly would give AI to their next door neighbors and division rivals! Usually superstars are traded to the other CONFERENCE, and nearly never within their own DIVISION. I see absolutely no reason why Philly would do that to themselves.

                  Indy is sitting pretty, IMO.
                  It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Before anyone gets too dismissive of Vecsey, he broke the Artest for Peja deal last year.
                    Which time?

                    He also broke the Bender to the Lakers trade IIRC.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                      Up to this point, I haven't commented on any of the AI frenzy/speculation, but I just want to voice my opinion here. I honestly believe we should not go after Iverson. He's already peaked, and if he doesnt bring a championship here within 2-3 years, then we will just be stuck with a declining player with a large salary (assuming he's given an extension). Yes, he's a great talent but to get him we would have to either give up Tinsley or Harrington, or possibly both. Tinsley has been playing well and is on probably his longest consecutive game streak he's had in a while. Harrington, on the other hand, is the guy we spent all summer trying to get. He's a fan friendly player and seems to be a good chemistry guy. On top of that, he is our only post threat after Jermaine. We don't need a guy that is going to come in and score 30 pts while shooting 30 shots. We don't even know how he and JO would co-exist..or if they could. Of course this is JMO and can easily be argued. Feel free to bash away...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                        Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                        I hear it's between Golden State and Boston. I think the Pacers only get in the mix if those teams won't give up the young guys Philly wants.
                        I agree. I think Philly is just sitting around and waiting to see which team (Boston or Golden State) blinks first and gives up the young players Philly wants.

                        I think Indy only gets seriously in the running on Friday, when Al Harrington can be traded. If by then Boston and Golden State still haven't budged by then, then Philly will probably seriously look at what Indy has to offer.

                        Indy is probably just throwing their name in the hat just in case anyone wants to take Jack or Tinsley off their hands.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                          He also broke the Bender to the Lakers trade IIRC.
                          That is not the way I remember it at all

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                            Im starting to think that Golden State will get AI
                            If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
                            [/center]
                            @thatguyjoe84

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                              I also remember Vescey's Reggie to the Knicks/Lakers from '96.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                                I honestly don't remember Vescey ever reporting that a trade will occur and it turns out the trade doesn't happen. . He reports teams are talking or maybe a certain proposed deal is close, but when Vescey says a deal is done it's done. But if you notice he rarely says a deal is done.

                                I think people read what they want to read and if they read Vescey report that the Pacers are offering the Sixers Al, Jax and JT for Iverson - then people run with it and infer that Vescey is saying the trade will actually take place when all he's saying is the pacers are offering so and so.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X