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

Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

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

  • Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

    According to a friend in LA the Lakers and Rockets completed a small deal just now. Rockets send Luther Head and pick #26 to the Lakers for pick #19 and Brian Cook.

    Yesterday a rumor surfaced the Pacers and Rockets had discussed Ike Diogu for pick 26 , could be the completed trade (if true) could move the Pacers up from 26 to 19 if the Rockets deal the pick for Diogu.

    Diogu fits the Rockets needs for a scorer at pf , could be Bird sees his sg (Fernandez, Belinelli or Almonds ) available at 19 where he may not have been at 26.

  • #2
    Re: Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

    I wouldn't call that help, I don't like it.

    -- Steve --

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

      http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=16345



      Chad Ford: (12:37 PM ET ) We have our first deal! It's a biggie!

      Chad Ford: (12:38 PM ET ) Orlando traded the 54th pick to Houston for cash considerations! The crowd goes wild!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

        Not saying I like trading Ike Diogu for a pick but 19 would be better than 26.

        Or did getting Brian Cook eliminate Rockets need for Diogu?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

          Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
          Not saying I like trading Ike Diogu for a pick but 19
          DD, keep that thought because I can't see the Ps trading Ike either.
          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

            http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...ck=2&cset=true


            There's no chance of Garnett joining Lakers
            Minnesota star probably will end up with the Phoenix Suns
            June 28, 2007


            Accept it: Kevin Garnett is not coming to the Lakers.

            Definitely not in the four-team trade that would have involved the Lakers, Minnesota, Indiana and Boston. And, it became apparent Wednesday, not in the possible Lakers-Timberwolves trade that emerged as an alternative when the stars didn't align for the bigger deal.

            ADVERTISEMENT
            The Timberwolves want draft picks and young players and figured they could do better than the Lakers' offer of Lamar Odom — and his $27.4 million over the next two seasons — and the promising but inconsistent Andrew Bynum. If Garnett goes anywhere it's likely to be Phoenix in a multi-team deal. That could happen as early as today's draft at the WaMu Theater at New York's Madison Square Garden.

            Atlanta, with the third and 11th picks to trade, wants Amare Stoudemire and could be part of a three-way trade with Minnesota and Phoenix that sends Garnett to the Suns. Another rumored variation involves Boston, Minnesota and Phoenix and would move Garnett to Phoenix, Shawn Marion to Boston and Al Jefferson from Boston to Minnesota.

            Garnett supposedly favors the Suns — and the opportunity to have All-Star teammate and pal Steve Nash feed him the ball — over a chance to play for the Lakers. Which only proves that he's smart, given the Lakers' current dysfunctional state.

            It goes back to Kobe Bryant, who hasn't publicly changed his stance since he posted on his website May 28 that "the Lakers and me just have two different visions for the future" and that he sees "a new road ahead." Nor has he contradicted a report floated by ESPN's Ric Bucher that he would sit out next season if the Lakers don't trade him to a team that's in a better position to win a championship.

            The Lakers have no plan to trade Bryant anywhere because it's impossible to get equal value in return for a player of his caliber. Any team able to make a reasonable offer would be wiped out, and if it wouldn't be a contender anymore, Bryant wouldn't want to go there, anyway.

            ESPN's Jim Gray reported Wednesday that Lakers owner Jerry Buss responded with a cryptic "no comment" when Gray asked during a phone interview whether Buss was willing to trade Bryant. Gray presumably had the right number this time, unlike the chat he reported having in December with Allen Iverson in which Iverson expressed a wish to be traded to Minnesota. It turned out not to be Iverson at the other end. Oops.

            Gray also reported that Buss described his meeting with Bryant in Spain 10 days ago as "very cordial," but declined to say if he was disappointed that Bryant asked to be traded. Buss also said the Lakers "are trying" to make a trade and "will make a deal if it improves the team … but not just to make a deal, but if it makes us better."

            One way to accomplish that would be by sending Bynum — whom Bryant allegedly trashed in the infamous parking-lot video made by the money-grubbing "Kobe Video Guys" — and Odom to Indiana for Jermaine O'Neal.

            O'Neal was the Lakers' initial trade target before they thought they might get Garnett. If O'Neal has become a consolation prize, he's a good one. The Lakers could then use their mid-level exception of about $5 million for next season to sign a point guard who would be an upgrade over Smush Parker.

            The Lakers have been reluctant to give up Bynum, who last season alternately intrigued and infuriated Coach Phil Jackson and everyone else. But they shouldn't let Bynum's potential stop them from making that deal.

            Like the Lakers, Bynum had a strong start. They were 26-13 after their 100-96 victory at San Antonio on Jan. 17; Bynum, who averaged 7.6 points and 6.1 rebounds in November and 6.1 and 4.1 in December, peaked at 10.7 points and nine rebounds in January.

            After that, it was all downhill for them and him. Bynum averaged 8.7 points and 7.1 rebounds in February, 5.4 and 4.7 in March and 7.5 and 3.9 in April, with his playing time dipping to 17.7 minutes a game over the last 10 games. In the Lakers' five-game playoff loss to Phoenix, he averaged only 11 minutes, four points and 4.6 rebounds.

            Jackson frequently criticized Bynum's fitness and work ethic and with good cause, since Bynum was too winded too often for a 19-year-old. Since the season ended, Bynum has been working out regularly at the Lakers' El Segundo practice facility, a sign he wants to improve his conditioning. But Bryant, who will be 29 in August and has a lot of miles on his legs, may be past his prime when or if Bynum becomes an impact player.

            It wouldn't be a shock, though, if the Lakers don't make a trade today.

            Their pick, at No. 19, isn't worth a lot in a draft that's deep through the first 12 but then dramatically drops in quality. Historically, the Lakers haven't been active on draft day: they last made a draft-day deal in 1998, when they sent Nick Van Exel to Denver for Tony Battie and the rights to Tyronn Lue.

            The kicker to this is that if the last few weeks have been chaotic, wait until this time next year. That's when Jackson and General Manager Mitch Kupchak will be nearing the end of their contracts and Bryant will be a year away from being able to invoke his opt-out clause, which would switch the hammer from the Lakers' hands to his.

            That could make the parking-lot video a fond memory.
            ========================================

            That's good to see someone say. (what I bolded) and this is from the LATimes at that. (preparing the fans for JO instead of KG??)

            Well that way too LA could assure that we get the #19 w/o giving it to us themselves and the "give up" Bynum and Brown/Odom for JO and NOT look like they were overpaying.

            How's that for a conspiracy theory???
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

              I could deal with #19 for Diogu if Acie Law would be on the board when we get there.

              Otherwise...

              meh.

              Even then, Diogu is more proven then Law.

              I could live with it just because the end could be in sight for Tinsley as a Pacer.
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 06-28-2007, 12:49 PM.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

                If we trade Ike for a mid to late first round pick, which personally I think is a terrible idea, it does make Indy a more desirable location for Lamar Odom if the LA deal does go down, as he wouldn't have to worry about a developing player taking his minute.

                Possible future lineup:
                Tinsley/McLeod
                Daniels/#19
                Granger/Williams
                Odom/Baston
                Bynum/Foster

                PF depth becomes a big issue. I'd like to try get Turiaf as a throw in in the LA deal (rather than Sasha) if getting Kwame isn't possible.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

                  This is just proof that Larry has a big mouth. After looking at the stats from last year, Luther Head was 4th in 3 pt. FG%. I think that the deal with Houston involving Ike was his shooter, and now there will be no shooter.
                  Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
                  http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

                    Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                    I could deal with #19 for Diogu if Acie Law would be on the board when we get there.

                    Otherwise...

                    meh.

                    Even then, Diogu is more proven then Law.

                    I could live with it just because the end could be in sight for Tinsley as a Pacer.
                    The end as in...probably still a couple more seasons. I would want JT for one more year rather than starting a rookie.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

                      Originally posted by FrenchConnection View Post
                      This is just proof that Larry has a big mouth. After looking at the stats from last year, Luther Head was 4th in 3 pt. FG%. I think that the deal with Houston involving Ike was his shooter, and now there will be no shooter.

                      I bet you are right, makes perfect sense. Now watch him overspend for Kapono.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

                        I'd trade Ike if Law is there at 19... or at least think about it.
                        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

                          Maybe we still do get Head. Maybe Head was dealt to the Lakers as part of a Bynum/Odom/Head deal??

                          Just a thought.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

                            How does that deal even work? Cook makes more than twice what Head makes and both teams are over the cap.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rockets/Lakers small deal may help Pacers

                              Darn, I would have loved to have gotten Head.
                              Narf!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X