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

2004-01-26 Rumor Mill

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

  • 2004-01-26 Rumor Mill

    Most of this is stale, but it gets us up-to-date...
    [hr]

    Rumor Mill - Magic ready to swap Howard for Olowokandi?


    Juwan Howard
    Magic

    Who's Interested?

    T-Wolves
    Cavaliers
    Raptors
    Sonics
    Nuggets
    Pistons

    Jan. 26 - GM John Gabriel has been shopping
    Howard, along with swingman Gordan Giricek, since mid
    December. According to the Orlando Sentinel, the Magic
    may be interested in swapping Howard for T-Wolves center
    Michael Olowokandi.

    The Chicago Tribune reported that Jalen Rose has been
    pushing the Raptors to make a trade for Howard. The
    Cavs, Sonics, Nuggets and Pistons have also reportedly
    shown interest.


    Rasheed Wallace
    Blazers

    Who's Interested?

    Mavericks
    Knicks
    Hawks
    Cavs
    Rockets
    Nets

    Jan. 26 - The latest 'Sheed rumor over the weekend,
    courtesy of the Newark Star-Ledger, involved a
    three-team trade that would have sent Wallace to
    Atlanta, Shareef Abdur-Rahim to New York and Keith Van
    Horn to Portland. However, talks reportedly broke down
    because the Blazers insisted Kurt Thomas also needed to
    be part of the deal. The Knicks still appear to be the
    team most interested in Wallace, with the Cavs, Rockets
    and Nets also keeping tabs on him.

    Donnie Nelson and Blazers GM John Nash met last week to
    discuss a trade that would send Wallace to Dallas for
    Antawn Jamison and Tariq Abdul-Wahad. The meeting lasted
    about 20 minutes and ended without a deal. Nelson told
    the Dallas Morning News that the talks with the Blazers
    are "dead" and "it never really was alive." ESPN.com's
    Marc Stein reported this weekend that owner Paul Allen
    decided he wanted to keep Wallace for now. Does that
    mean that 'Sheed is officially off the trading block?


    Zydrunas Ilgauskas
    Cavs

    Who's Interested?

    Knicks
    Mavericks
    Blazers

    Jan. 26 - Is Zydrunas off the block? With so many
    teams in need of a big man, Ilgauskas has been a pretty
    hot commodity. The Mavs (for Antawn Jamison), Knicks
    (for Keith Van Horn and Frank Williams) and Blazers (for
    Rasheed Wallace) have all tried to pry Ilgauskas away,
    but so far GM Jim Paxson isn't biting.

    Now comes word from the Akron Beacon Journal on Sunday
    that Ilgauskas is off the block and will remain with the
    team for the rest of the season.


    Melvin Ely
    Clippers

    Who's Interested?

    Bulls

    Jan. 26 - The O.C. Register reported Friday the
    Clippers were shopping little-used power forward Melvin
    Ely, who's mired on the bench behind Elton Brand, Chris
    Wilcox, Chris Kaman and Peja Drobjnak. "It's hard to get
    all the minutes around at that position," coach Mike
    Dunleavy said. "We have Brand, we have Kaman, Wilcox and
    Drobnjak. On a given night, you're only going to play
    three, maybe four guys."

    The Chicago Tribune reported Monday the Bulls might be
    interested in an Ely-for-Marcus Fizer swap. Fizer is in
    the last year of his contract, which would allow the
    Clippers to get further under the cap this summer to
    make a run at Kobe Bryant.


    Eddy Curry
    Bulls

    Who's Interested?

    Mavs
    Sonics
    Blazers

    Jan. 21 - On Tuesday Insider first reported that Bulls
    GM John Paxson had recently dangled Eddy Curry and Tyson
    Chandler in trade discussions. While sources claimed
    that Paxson was in no way giving the Baby Bulls away,
    the fact that the two were no longer untouchable was
    significant. Paxson essentially confirmed the story in
    Wednesday's editions of the Chicago Sun-Times. "I played
    with one guy who was untouchable or untradeable," Paxson
    said of Michael Jordan. "There are maybe a handful of
    guys in the league right now who fit in that category.
    The fact we're 12-29 answers whether any of our guys are
    untouchable."

    While Paxson said he's not inclined to deal Curry or
    Chandler, he's got to start looking at the
    opportunities. "I'm disappointed, and I know our fans
    are disappointed," Paxson said. "But I can't afford to
    panic. When you look at our two big, young kids, it's
    hard to make an argument to give up on them. They're
    still in their infancy in this league. . . I'm not
    panicking. But I'm not going to be super-cautious,
    either. You just have to believe that what you do will
    significantly help your team."


    Keith Van Horn
    Knicks

    Who's Interested?

    Blazers?
    Cavs?

    Jan. 20 - It sure sounds like Keith Van Horn's days
    in New York are numbered. Isiah Thomas keeps talking
    about landing an athletic forward to run with Stephon
    Marbury -- a not so subtle dig at Van Horn. The question
    is whether Thomas can get someone to take on the last
    two years, and $30 million of Van Horn's contract.
    Thomas has tried to convince Portland and Cleveland to
    take him, to no avail. Is there another team out there
    that wants Van Horn? Conventional wisdom says no.


    Jamal Crawford
    Bulls

    Who's Interested?

    Knicks

    Jan. 20 - The Chicago Sun-Times reported Sunday
    that Bulls GM John Paxson and Knicks president Isiah
    Thomas had spoken about a Crawford-to-the-Knicks trade.
    According to the New York Daily News, the Knicks offered
    Shandon Anderson and Frank Williams for Crawford and
    Eddie Robinson. While the Bulls are exploring trade
    options for Crawford, it's unlikely that they'll pull
    the trigger on the Knicks trade.


    Eric Snow
    Sixers

    Who's Interested?

    ???

    Jan. 20 - The Sixers quietly have been exploring a
    Snow trade for the last few weeks, but they aren't
    finding any takers. While a number of teams love him as
    a player, the five years remaining on his contract are a
    killer.

    Ron Mercer
    Spurs

    Who's Interested?

    Pistons

    Jan. 20 - The Spurs have been trying to move
    Mercer for about a month. The Pistons have been trying
    to get him from San Antonio, but don't have anything the
    Spurs want in return. The two teams have tried to find a
    third team to make something happen, but so far, nothing
    has worked out.


    Antawn Jamison
    Mavericks

    Who's Interested?

    Blazers
    Cavaliers

    Jan. 19 - He's safe for now. Trade talks with
    the Blazers broke off over the weekend, meaning Jamison
    can breathe a little easier for now. The Cavs also have
    shown some interest, and the Mavs have pursued Zydrunas
    Ilgauskas in the past, but Mavs owner Mark Cuban
    continues to claim he's happy with the team and isn't
    inclined to make a trade.


    Shareef Abdur-Rahim
    Hawks

    Who's Interested?

    Cavs
    Blazers
    Sonics
    Jazz
    Warriors?

    Jan. 19 - The interest in Abdur-Rahim around
    the league is enormous. The Akron Beacon Journal
    reported Sunday that Abdur-Rahim wants out and the Cavs
    wouldn't mind taking him off the Hawks' hands. The New
    York Post reported the Blazers are trying to send
    Rasheed Wallace to Atlanta for Abdur-Rahim and Chris
    Crawford.

    The question is whether the Hawks actually will trade
    him. Don't count on it, unless two things happen. One,
    the sale of the team finally is approved by the league
    sometime in January. And two, the Hawks find takers for
    Theo Ratliff and Jason Terry. If they can get those guys
    off the books, trading Abdur-Rahim gives them lots of
    cap flexibility.

    Tracy McGrady
    Magic

    Who's Interested?

    Blazers

    Jan. 15 - The Orlando Sentinel reports the
    Blazers called the Magic about a McGrady-for-Rasheed
    Wallace swap. GM John Gabriel denied McGrady was on the
    block. McGrady's response to the rumor? "I don't believe
    any of that, but I did hear the Rasheed rumor," McGrady
    said. "I think there would be a lot of disappointed
    Orlando fans if that happened." No kidding.


    Marcus Camby
    Nuggets

    Who's Interested?

    Knicks

    Jan. 15 - Isiah Thomas called Nuggets GM Kiki
    Vandeweghe over the weekend about Camby's availability
    but reportedly was shut down. The Nuggets are leaning
    toward keeping Camby around, given their success in the
    West this year. That doesn't mean Camby isn't available
    at the right price, but the Knicks have nothing the
    Nuggets really want.


    Jason Terry
    Hawks

    Who's Interested?

    Blazers?
    Pacers?

    Jan. 15 - Terry has been pushing Hawks management
    to make a trade, even if he has to be included in it.
    Plenty of teams are interested, but Terry is a base-year
    compensation player, making a one-for-one swap virtually
    impossible. Unless he's paired up with someone like Theo
    Ratliff or Shareef Abdur-Rahim in a blockbuster-type
    trade, Terry's going to have to ride out the storm in
    Atlanta.


    Theo Ratliff
    Hawks

    Who's Interested?

    Blazers
    Grizzlies
    Bucks?
    Celtics?

    Jan. 15 - Ratliff's ongoing feud with coach
    Terry Stotts has put him in the crosshairs. There's talk
    the Blazers want Ratliff and would be willing to swap
    Rasheed Wallace for him if the Hawks also included
    Terry. Terry is a base-year player, which makes that
    trade more difficult, but it is doable with the right
    add-ons.

    The Grizzlies also have interest in Ratliff, but they're
    running out of ammo to get him. A combo of Stromile
    Swift, Jake Tsakalidis and Shane Battier might be
    enough, but is the injury-prone Ratliff really worth
    that price?
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

Working...
X