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

Hoopsworld: J. O'Neal to Denver?

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

  • #46
    Re: Hoopsworld: J. O'Neal to Denver?

    I cannot see Denver making another big deal and trading both their big men for another 10 plus year vet. Don't see it. Indi would consider a package centered around Nene, but Denver has no picks, while the Lakers have theirs. Plus, and I think Bynum has a bit more upside than Nene, though Nene is a bit better right now. But Bynum is all center, while Nene is more of a 4. By the way, if the Celtics were that hot to trot for JO, I would think they would rather trade Green and expirings, along with the #5 pick for JO. This would save them Jefferson, while adding JO. Maybe Boston still does that trade, but you guys have to get some size back for JO, so Bynum is pretty clearly better than Noah. Conley probably would not be there anyway. Green or the #19? Probably Green, but you can pick anyone you want 19, and maybe you guys want more of a PG. Plus, all of the other picks, including #40. I still think Walsh and Bird take Bynum and the picks for a guy who may be out of dodge anyways.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Hoopsworld: J. O'Neal to Denver?

      Boston was willing to deal Jefferson and the pick for KG. To me, that either tells me one of 3 things:

      1.JO to LA is completed
      2. Boston would rather have KG and Greene than JO and Jefferson
      3. Boston may still revisit the JO deal, as maybe it is an offer from the Pacers that they are not comfortable with.

      My guess is that something must not be great between the Pacers and Celts if the Celts completed the KG deal. In my opinion, keepoing Jefferson and trading Green and the pick for JO would make them better. Maybe they disagree or maybe JO is already heading elsewhere. Who knows? But I do think JO is getting traded; I am not sure about KG.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Hoopsworld: J. O'Neal to Denver?

        Originally posted by Mal View Post
        Bingo. Bunch of fiction writers.
        Haha, that's kind of funny. I'm an (aspiring) fiction writer. Maybe I should call up the folks at HW and discuss some of the craft. They've sure as heck been published more than I have.
        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Hoopsworld: J. O'Neal to Denver?

          LINK

          Sounds like they did have a part discussion but no where as serious as the LA one. which is cool!


          According to a league source, the Denver Nuggets have entered into negotiations with the Indiana Pacers with regard to acquiring forward Jermaine O'Neal. The source said the deal being discussed involves Marcus Camby and Nene going to the Pacers for O'Neal. The aforementioned deal would work under the cap.

          Another potential deal which reportedly has been discussed is Camby, Eduardo Najera and Reggie Evans going to the Pacers for O'Neal. However, the source indicated there is little incentive for the Pacers to complete a deal like this because it does not help them rebuild with any younger players. The Nuggets would much prefer to pull the trigger on the latter deal as opposed to the former because it would allow them to keep the 24-year-old Nene and team him up with O'Neal. The source indicated, however, the Pacers are adamant about having Nene involved in any deal for O'Neal.

          By acquiring Camby and Nene, the Pacers would be responsible for the remaining three years on Camby's contract. However, in Nene the Pacers would also get a young player who played at an All-Star level the final two months of the regular season which might be enough to entice them to take on the risk that comes with acquiring a veteran player with a fairly extensive injury history such as the 33-year-old Camby.

          Despite what the league source said, Denver Vice President of Basketball Operations Mark Warkentien informed Basketball News early Saturday morning that there is nothing to the rumors and that no trade for O'Neal is imminent. Another member of the organization didn't deny that Denver had interest in O'Neal but said no substantial trade discussions have taken place.
          "To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe." - Anatole France

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Hoopsworld: J. O'Neal to Denver?

            i understand that this rumor is all speculation at this point, but it's not as one-sided as i first thought.

            consider the rumored lakers deal vs nuggets - would you rather have odom and bynum or camby and nene? ignoring salaries for the moment, i would pick camby over odom, while bynum probably has a higher ceiling than nene. so the 2 packages are comparable, imo.

            the stickler is the contracts. odom has 2 years left while bynum is still on rookie scale - financially that's very attractive. camby has 3 years left while nene has 4 years left of a murphy-like contract - not nice with our current situation.

            so denver imo has to add more incentive. chiefly, they'd have to take troy murphy in exchange for najera's expiring deal (assuming najera doesn't exercise his opt out). this works under trade checker

            j.o. and murphy for camby, nene, najera

            if the deal is done after the draft, i believe the nuggets can also tack on their 2008 #1. other assets the nuggets have - steve blake, but he's a free agent so would have to agree to a s&t; j.r. smith, but his issues will probably scare the pacers away; linas kleiza, promising forward but we're stacked at his position.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Hoopsworld: J. O'Neal to Denver?

              This is a horrible deal for us. Why wouldn't we want Camby? Why? If we're giving JO away it's because we're "retooling" or what not. I'd take a Laker deal sans Odom before I took this deal.

              Actually, a deal where we get Bynum (front court set for years), Brown (cap flexibility and half-decent player), first round pick this year for Fernandez, Almond, Belinelli, or other shooters, and Farmar (young PG with nice potential). And Lakereric, you guys would be free to have any of our backup PGs to fill those spots (does it really matter who is on that team with Kobe, JO, and Odom?

              With Denver you get help at one position and help block Ike's development at another.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Hoopsworld: J. O'Neal to Denver?

                If there isn't a second deal for a guard, and I mean a shooting guard, mostly, because there is a hurt Daniels, who is the only real 2 guard and is flawed. If not you have Camby, Nene, Ike, Foster, Murphy, and Harrison manning the Center/PF position, wow. Can any of them play one of the guard spots?

                Think of last year when Tinsley and Daniels were injured and they both have a history. 39 year old DA and Dunleavy at the 2 and what Orien Greene backing up both spots?????

                It's a little alarming that all of the rumors are for big guys when 1. the game has become a perimeter guard game 2. you are missing a 2 guard and a consistent point guard (at least a back up) and these are GLARING needs.

                This deal and the LA deal are loading up on the frontline, maybe, they really don't think Ike can play, at all. I just can't understand it. Maybe Nene, who is young, but has a blown knee in his history, is a star waiting to happen, maybe Bynum is Dwight Howard in disguise, maybe they aren't, hell, probably they aren't.

                Doesn't it make sense to have a Jamaal Crawford and Chris Duhon type instead, at least for this team, the way it is structured. I think Duhon can be had for a fair price and anyone who can defend and hit an open 20 footer at the 2 would look all world to us after watching Stephen Jackson chuck up shot after shot and not getting back on D and Dunleavy picking up his jock watching his guy lay it in.

                All I'm saying is last summer it was any guy 6'9" was being acquired now its anyone 6'11". How about some backcourt help. Someone who can guard Ben Gordon, Arenas, Chauncey, hell how about guarding Jameer Nelson. We loved Armstrong, not because he reinvented playing D against quick guards, but because it was so foreign to us it looked awesome. Isn't there a Travis Best out there? Or anyone from a backcourt postion who has some lateral quickness couple that with a guy who can shoot...... I guess when the Pacers are shooting 35 percent from the field, they think playing 3 centers together maybe you can control the boards, I really am at a loss quite frankly. Lets just not change for change sake, be smart about it, have a bigger vision. These aren't basketball card we are trading....
                Last edited by Speed; 06-23-2007, 07:19 AM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Hoopsworld: J. O'Neal to Denver?

                  The lack of any backcourt help in this scenario (RUMOR?) is a bit disconcerting. I have to think that were this deal consumated we would then be looking to move one or two of Ike, Nene, Foster, Camby, Harrison (and even one of our 3 SF prospects) for a G or two. A few other thoughts:

                  -Agree with the point that Denver sending it's two interior options out for just one interior option in return seems hard to believe.

                  -Don't think this trade idea is so lopsided as some seem to believe. All three can be argued to have tough contracts and have injury concerns. It is true that JO is better individually than the other two.

                  -In comparison with the hypothesized Laker deals, can we be certain that Bynum will be that superior to Nene in the long run? True Bynum in stature is more in the traditional C mold.

                  -Would Bynum and the 19 minus Odom be a better deal than this Denver speculation? I'm not convinced, but certainly gives a direct route to selecting a G.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Hoopsworld: J. O'Neal to Denver?

                    The lack of any backcourt help in this scenario (RUMOR?) is a bit disconcerting. I have to think that were this deal consumated we would then be looking to move one or two of Ike, Nene, Foster, Camby, Harrison (and even one of our 3 SF prospects) for a G or two. A few other thoughts:

                    -Agree with the point that Denver sending it's two interior options out for just one interior option in return seems hard to believe.

                    -Don't think this trade idea is so lopsided as some seem to believe. All three can be argued to have tough contracts and have injury concerns. It is true that JO is better individually than the other two.

                    -In comparison with the hypothesized Laker deals, can we be certain that Bynum will be that superior to Nene in the long run? True Bynum in stature is more in the traditional C mold.

                    -Would Bynum and the 19 minus Odom be a better deal than this Denver speculation? I'm not convinced, but certainly gives a direct route to selecting a G.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Hoopsworld: J. O'Neal to Denver?

                      I actually kind of like Nene. He had a good year last year and could be on the verge of being a very good big man. But I don't want brittle old man Camby. If we could keep Nene and send Camby out for either a good 1st or a good young guard, I'd be ok with the deal.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Hoopsworld: J. O'Neal to Denver?

                        Originally posted by Y2J View Post
                        I actually kind of like Nene. He had a good year last year and could be on the verge of being a very good big man. But I don't want brittle old man Camby. If we could keep Nene and send Camby out for either a good 1st or a good young guard, I'd be ok with the deal.

                        My questions are, if you did this, who would score, who is your go to guy, who is your leader, who is the face of the franchise, what is your vision, is that a team that is at best average, who are you building around?

                        If Deron Williams or Chris Paul is the point guard, I would say okay, I see, but otherwise I don't see where it's going except for hoping for a top 2 ping pong balls and alot of empty seats.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X