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

Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

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

  • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

    Originally posted by HeartlandFan View Post
    I don't think Diogu will ever be anything more than a 15 and 8 type guy. He's too small and not athletic enough.
    That's what Jerry Krause said when he dealt Elton Brand to LA for Tyson Chandler. This is a rebuilding year, I say give Ike a go this year and see what he can do, then take another look in '08.
    basketbawful.com- The best of the worst of professional basketball. And there's a lot of it.

    Comment


    • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

      Originally posted by ABADays View Post
      Shade - you are a Colts fan. Tell me - what is the difference between trading JO to LA for potential and the Colts move not to resign James. I would just be interested in your perception.

      I'm not Shade but I am a huge Colts fan and I agreed with not resigning James. RB's in the NFL start wearing out in their late 20's and to sign James to a long term deal that would take up huge cap space and not allow the team to sign other positions wouldn't be fiscally sound. Especially since he was starting on the downside of career.

      The JO situation is similar in that this team does not need to pay around 60 million dollars for a player who is not able to get this team where it needs to get to. With his injury proneness and the fact he is almost 30 JO is definitely not worthy of top 5 money, which he is due to get. JO still has several good years in him but he will be in his early to mid 30's by the time the Pacers are able to realistically compete for a title.
      "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
      - Benjamin Franklin

      Comment


      • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

        We have a trade proposal forum. I've seen a ton (non rumored) trades in this thread alone. Please put them where they belong. Thanks.

        Comment


        • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

          Mal, I understand your issue, but I think in the context of this discussion the proposals mostly have been related pretty directly to what people think of the rumored trade. The point seems to usually be "I don't like this because I think this other option is better."

          It doesn't seem quite like the wide-open random fantasy proposals that normally clog and ruin regular discussion. Normally those bug me quite a bit but I haven't been put off by anything in this thread.

          Comment


          • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

            Really just perhaps a regurgatation of Vecsey's column or perhaps from a similar source, I assume this was already posted or mentioned, but it appears not....

            Sam Smith
            On Pro Basketball
            May 31, 2007

            .......
            It's pretty clear from Bryant's comments regarding Jackson that the Lakers will try to make a big move to accommodate him. There has been talk of Kevin Garnett, Amare Stoudemire or Jermaine O'Neal. O'Neal seems the most likely possibility because the Suns aren't about to trade within the division, even if they were to deal Stoudemire.Some NBA insiders believe the Pacers will try to deal O'Neal this summer.

            There have been some informal talks, with the sticking point the inclusion of young Lakers center Andrew Bynum. The Pacers want him as well as Lamar Odom and want to get rid of Jamaal Tinsley.

            But the Knicks really want O'Neal to pair with Eddy Curry and have some pieces to offer in Channing Frye and David Lee. It's not enough, but they'll keep at it.

            So it's no sure thing the Lakers can pull off a big deal, and even if they can get someone like The Other O'Neal, it's hardly a guarantee of playoff success in the loaded Western Conference. Jackson's contract expires after next season and he has yet to accept an extension. With another first-round ouster and Bryant then a year away from being able to opt out, the Lakers then could have no choice but to look for the best offer for Bryant....... cont'd
            Chicago Tribune
            Last edited by Frank Slade; 05-31-2007, 10:36 PM.

            Why Not Us ?

            Comment


            • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

              Just wondering whether we could move Odom to the Celtics for Gerald Green + filler? The filler could be a bad contract (Wally). Would they do that, or is Green untouchable? Or would we need to add something (e.g., Daniels or #19)? Could we expand the trade to get Delonte West?

              I'd consider a new team with young potential stars Bynum and Green, together with Granger, Williams, Ike, Farmar (and maybe West) a good start on rebuilding, to say the least.

              All that assumes, of course, an LA deal that brings Bynum and Odom + Farmar + the #19 for JO and Tins plus whatever.

              Comment


              • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                Originally posted by rommie View Post
                This team is not going to be perfect after one trade, we are re building. It's not about having all of your pieces fit together right now.

                You build around your big man first. Bynum is that. Bynum, Granger, and Williams to start with.

                We can always trade Lamar Odom (assuming we get him) for backcourt help. We mostly just need a shooting guard right now.
                Thank You! I'll admit that when this trade popped up awhile back in the trade proposal forum, I was not the least bit excited, but after these recent talks, I understand I wasn't excited b/c the team wasn't better instantly.

                Now that I look at it in full rebuilding mode... I understand.

                One trade isn't going to improve this team. Even if you look at the Atlanta/Boston deals... we're still taking a gamble on how talent will turn out.

                Gerald Green: I love his game, he's explosive, has range, and can flat out jump. He's showed signs that he could be awesome, but he's also showed the inconsistency

                Pick #5: Nice pick to have in what looks to be a deep draft. I'm guessing we're hoping for Conley or Brewer here, but if we have Green, then do we really need Brewer? One should be there, and both seem to be extremely talented players. Will that transfer over to the NBA ranks? It may or it may not.. it's a chance. We then turn to Ike and hope that he can produce down low, or draft a PF there, hoping the same. Either way we're taking a gamble on players HOPING they will pan out, there's no guarentee

                #3 and #11: We would then have our choice of either Conley or Brewer, and we have another lottery pick to fill a need as well. Once again will those picks pan out? We're hoping so, but it's always a gamble. Do we take Brewer at #3 and Law/Crittenton at #11? Conley at #3 and a SG/PF at #11 and hope they pan out? We don't know... they're seem to be great options, but who knows.

                Then there's that whole the Celtics and Hawks have to agree to it!! You don't think the Celtics realize what they have in Green with an aging and unhappy Pierce in front of him. JO would be a nice addition, but he's injury prone, aging, and you have a pretty good PF yourself in Jefferson.

                The Hawks are going to trade #3 AND #11 for the same JO mentioned above? No, they don't have that PF on there team, but there main concern has been PG play. You're in position to make up for recent drafts and get the best PG coming out, PLUS you can address your PF needs at #11, or vice versa. You can take the best PF at #3 (there's plenty) and you can still get a solid PG at 11. Instead you use to bring in a big contract to fill one of those needs.

                With the Lakers, you can bring in a proven player in Odom that can step right in and be a replacement in the role of oft. injured PF, except with better versatility. You ALSO add a 19 year old 7'0 tall Center, who would be a gamble like those other unproven players on other teams or in the draft, except he's 7'0 tall and probably younger then a few. You throw in the fact that you can get a PG/SG with #19, and that's like getting Odom and 2 1st round picks. One being 7'0 TALL, and the other filling one of your needs. On top of THAT there's a solid chance you can unload a huge salary WITH JO's, and have some nice felxibility in the next couple of years.

                If that doesn't ice the cake, there's that whole thing about the Lakers HAVING to make a move or risk losing their franchise player, and we just so happen to be rumored in the whole ordeal! The Celtics and Hawks aren't in that position, and there's nothing anywhere suggesting they would give up what we're asking for JO. Should we listen to offers and try to up the price for JO? ABSOLUTELY b/c we don't HAVE to move him. But if we know we're going in rebulding mode and need to move JO to do that....... why not milk it while we can before his value goes down more (which it will) or another team steps up to the plate and we end up being the team HAVING to move our franchise player or else!

                OH! And in case anyone forgot, this Bynum kid was capable of landing the Lakers the like of Kidd or Bibby, not saying we would/should want either of them, but teams seem to be high on him, and I'm guessing there's a good reason
                Last edited by pwee31; 05-31-2007, 10:48 PM. Reason: added thought

                Comment


                • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                  Isnt Telfair still out there. Wouldnt that be right up Birds alley, sign someone else that would make headlines off the court?
                  Bambam

                  Follow me on Twitter @http://twitter.com/brockhubble

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                    Am I the only one that would swap JO for Odom straight up if it were possible?

                    (Shhhh, don't tell.)

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                      Originally posted by pwee31
                      I think this trade is what Mal was worried about
                      Sorry...it took me forever to simply format that post. I have moved it.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                        Originally posted by Sam Smith
                        There have been some informal talks, with the sticking point the inclusion of young Lakers center Andrew Bynum. The Pacers want him as well as Lamar Odom and want to get rid of Jamaal Tinsley.
                        After listening to many of the Kobe Interviews yesterday....he mentioned many of the rumored players that the Lakers were interested with over the previous season ( such as Boozer and Kidd ). I suspect that at the very least....Bynum was one of the players that was asked for and was adamently rejected by the Buss Family cuz they ( not Kobe or Phil ) wants to keep him.

                        Although Odom probably was involved....I am pretty sure that the stumbling blocks for many potential trades was Bynum. I also recall reading comments by Kobe and Phil that said that they don't want to wait for Bynum to develop. If Bynum is the sticking point for ANY Trade involving the Lakers...then Kobe needs to go back on the radio. The sticking point should be Odom...NOT Bynum....or more specifically... a player that will help them in the future ( Bynum ) as opposed to the a player that will help them in the present ( Odom ).
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                          Originally posted by wjs View Post
                          Just wondering whether we could move Odom to the Celtics for Gerald Green + filler? The filler could be a bad contract (Wally). Would they do that, or is Green untouchable? Or would we need to add something (e.g., Daniels or #19)? Could we expand the trade to get Delonte West?

                          I'd consider a new team with young potential stars Bynum and Green, together with Granger, Williams, Ike, Farmar (and maybe West) a good start on rebuilding, to say the least.

                          All that assumes, of course, an LA deal that brings Bynum and Odom + Farmar + the #19 for JO and Tins plus whatever.
                          I think we are asking too much if we expect to get West and Farmar. I have a trade suggestion involving the Celtics that may get us the best deal for rebuilding in the Trade Proposal forum. We can't get too greedy here...but we can get Green, Bynum and the 5th pick while clearing $20 mil in contracts by the start of the 2008-2009 season ( which should make Seth happy ) IF we play our cards right.
                          Last edited by CableKC; 05-31-2007, 11:23 PM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                            I don't think we could get all of that. I highly, highly, highly doubt the Celtics would give up #5 and Green for Odom and #19, although I could be wrong. But if we could manage it, it'd be one of the greatest rebuilding moves I've ever seen a team make.

                            Odom, Bynum, & Brown for O'Neal & Tinsley or Green, Szczerbiak, Ratliff, & #5 for O'Neal & Dunleavy. Both are fine by me.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                              ESPNEWS just broke the news of the reported "JO to LA" trade. They said basically everything the article said but whatever. And the Lakers owner supposedly just issued a statement saying that he had a discussion with Kobe this morning. But I am so confused it's not even funny...
                              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


                              • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                                Originally posted by indyman37 View Post
                                ESPNEWS just broke the news of the reported "JO to LA" trade. They said basically everything the article said but whatever. And the Lakers owner supposedly just issued a statement saying that he had a discussion with Kobe this morning. But I am so confused it's not even funny...
                                Looks like our offseason is finally starting to begin

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X