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

Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

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

  • #16
    Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

    Originally posted by oneofthesedays View Post
    There is no way we give up Odom+Bynum for JO, it simply doesn't make us any better as a team.
    Well, why should we give JO up if it doesn't make us a better team? No reason, because he isn't mouthing off to the media saying he wants traded. (Oh, and Bird doesn't believe in rebuilding)

    My suggestion is to trade Kobe.

    Actually you would probably be better off giving us what we want and then trading Kobe anyway.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

      And...looking at the Laker position.

      No KG and then no JO.....what's the next option? What elite status player is there for the plucking? Marion? Lewis? We ARE dealing from a small modicum of strength. But at the same time.......where are we going to ship JO??? NJ yeah a possibility but after that???????
      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

        Originally posted by Swingman View Post
        Why would we give you a borderline All-Star for just a young guy with potential and fillers?
        Borderline? He's a six time all star!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

          Originally posted by oneofthesedays View Post
          Unless there are deals I haven't heard of, this is still one of the best offers on the table. Walsh seems to have a huge man-crush on Bynum, Kwame is an expiring K, and both Farmar/Critt. will probably pan out to be pretty good PG's. I know it's not fair value, but it's not crap either. Farmar managed to start on our squad in his rookie year, and PJ hates playing rookies. I think a compromise deal will be reached in the end, I have a gut feeling Walsh will give up on his insistence of Odom.
          I dunno about you (actually, I do, since you said so already) but, Farmar is not going to be a good point guard in this league. The guy got about ten turnovers in ten minutes during the rookie/sophmore game. And nobody was playing defense.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

            Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
            And...looking at the Laker position.

            No KG and then no JO.....what's the next option? What elite status player is there for the plucking? Marion? Lewis? We ARE dealing from a small modicum of strength. But at the same time.......where are we going to ship JO??? NJ yeah a possibility but after that???????
            Guess NY is off the table now.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

              Originally posted by oneofthesedays View Post
              Agreed but we all know when trading away an All-star player you never get fair value. Let's face it, JO's value around the league is very low. Nobody wants him. Similar to how the league feels about LO. The only teams that think these guys have any value are our teams.

              If you keep JO on your squad it's only delaying the inevitable. The Pacers need to start over and JO's massive contract has got to go. We are sacrificing all our young prospects in this trade to try and make a run now.

              Unless there are deals I haven't heard of, this is still one of the best offers on the table. Walsh seems to have a huge man-crush on Bynum, Kwame is an expiring K, and both Farmar/Critt. will probably pan out to be pretty good PG's. I know it's not fair value, but it's not crap either. Farmar managed to start on our squad in his rookie year, and PJ hates playing rookies. I think a compromise deal will be reached in the end, I have a gut feeling Walsh will give up on his insistence of Odom.
              I think KG will be traded to Phoenix, and then other western teams will give the Pacers what they want for JO to keep pace. I think the Lakers will keep Kobe until his contract expires and then lose him for next to nothing.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                Always informative hearing the otherside of this equation.

                If we throw in Odom to a Bynum+Farmar/Critt.+Filler deal we have to get back more than just JO. If you were to include JO+Granger+one of your many bad contracts?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                  Originally posted by oneofthesedays View Post
                  Always informative hearing the otherside of this equation.

                  If we throw in Odom to a Bynum+Farmar/Critt.+Filler deal we have to get back more than just JO. If you were to include JO+Granger+one of your many bad contracts?
                  Make a bad trade worse huh?

                  You sound just like another Laker fan on here! Actually I'm okay with not dealing with the Lakers. My feelings about any Laker trade are, our way or no way! Give us what we want or we won't trade with you!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                    I think we need to bring in a 3rd team to make this work.

                    Was there any truth to the report that Denver wants to reduse payroll?

                    In a Bynum - Brown & filler deal, could Brown go to the Nuggets with them sending us a player(s). I havn't looked to see what might work but I think something is still possible.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                      Originally posted by oneofthesedays View Post
                      Always informative hearing the otherside of this equation.

                      If we throw in Odom to a Bynum+Farmar/Critt.+Filler deal we have to get back more than just JO. If you were to include JO+Granger+one of your many bad contracts?
                      So now you have suggested that we get rid of our TWO most productive players.

                      You see where this is going, right?

                      The talent levels of our two teams do not match up very well at all.

                      You have Kobe, who is several notches above anything we have. Then we have O'Neal, who is a few notches above anything else you have. In my opinion anyway, the distance between O'Neal and Odom is much greater than the distance between Odom and Granger.

                      But you are on the right track. The trade would need to be expanded, and it probably would need to include Brown. But from our perspective, it is then a debate over who we would need to include to even the dollars.

                      If you are returning a PG, or even two PGs, then we would want to ship you Tinsley. And quite frankly, from my perspective, any larger trade made by the Pacers would almost certainly have to include either Tinsley or Murphy. I think that would be closer to Donnie's thinking as well... to get our best player and a 6-time All-Star, you have to take either Tinsley (with his assorted problems) or you have to take on the contract of Murphy.

                      I think this factor probably contributed as much to the trade breaking down in the first place as our insistance on getting both Odom and Bynum.

                      I really wouldn't count on Donnie/Larry budging at all. We perceive that you cannot get your hands on KG, therefore your next best option is O'Neal. Beyond that, there is a huge drop-off in what might be available... or at least what is available at this time.

                      Therefore, since you probably lose Kobe without a marked improvement in your frontcourt, the perception, and I believe rightfully so, is that any team that the Lakers choses to deal with will have a slight upperhand in negotiations. If the Lakers try to deal otherwise, they risk finding themselves with no improved frontcourt AND the likelihood of either trading Kobe or ticking him off that they will lose him for nothing in 2 years.

                      I don't envy the Laker position at all. And if I were a longtime loyal Laker fan, I would be irreparably peeved at Kobe for putting my team in this predicament.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                        Well from my understanding of Jerry Buss's position he is simply not going to make trades to appease Kobe. They have to be for the betterment of the team. LO+AB for JO does not make our team any better, we still get bounced out of the 1st round.

                        As far as KG is concerned, we aren't getting him and quite frankly I don't even know if he is going anywhere to be honest. McHale is an even bigger idiot than Kupchak. If Donnie/Larry don't budge on Odom this trade is dead in the water. We will probably keep the same roster plus the few upgrades we can make with our MLE.

                        I get the feeling that Donnie/Larry will budge, the Pacer demands keep getting smaller and smaller. First we had to take back a bad contract and include AB+LO, now it's just AB+LO+Filler for JO straight up. JO already stated he will opt out next year, so it's either trade him now or get nothing for him. We are both desperate, nobody is dealing from strength here.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                          I think that is where you are wrong.

                          You seem to have to improve your frontcourt before you even get into training camp. If you don't, can you count on Kobe to even be in camp? Or will he become a holdout to make a statement?

                          We, on the other hand, do NOT have to appease O'Neal at this very moment. We could allow the season to start, then let teams contact us... those that need a special player to put them over the hump.

                          Even if JO were to opt out at the end of the season, I believe our options and our greater amount of time to react to our star player's demands, makes this trade less pressing for us than the Lakers.

                          If the trade does not happen, we suffer no immediate damage.

                          The Lakers, on the other hand, lose their second best option in appeasing Kobe, after already being derailed on their best option.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                            I wonder if Kupcheck is doing this much begging/negotiating to Donnie and Larry? Why do some Laker fans believe that we give the "business end of a rat" on making the Lakers better? I, as a Pacer fan could care less about giving ANY club a fair trade for J.O. He is OUR franchise player right now, and if any club wants him...I'm sure there is a price to pay.

                            The worst thing for the Pacers if we don't make a move on J.O. is that we go into the season with our 6 time All-Star. To me, that is not a bad position to be in. I can't say the same for the Lakers position!

                            Thank Kobe for me...He is totally throwing your squad under the bus.
                            ...Still "flying casual"
                            @roaminggnome74

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                              This title must be killing Graham. It just has to be.
                              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                                Originally posted by oneofthesedays View Post
                                Well from my understanding of Jerry Buss's position he is simply not going to make trades to appease Kobe. They have to be for the betterment of the team. LO+AB for JO does not make our team any better, we still get bounced out of the 1st round.

                                As far as KG is concerned, we aren't getting him and quite frankly I don't even know if he is going anywhere to be honest. McHale is an even bigger idiot than Kupchak. If Donnie/Larry don't budge on Odom this trade is dead in the water. We will probably keep the same roster plus the few upgrades we can make with our MLE.

                                I get the feeling that Donnie/Larry will budge, the Pacer demands keep getting smaller and smaller. First we had to take back a bad contract and include AB+LO, now it's just AB+LO+Filler for JO straight up. JO already stated he will opt out next year, so it's either trade him now or get nothing for him. We are both desperate, nobody is dealing from strength here.
                                First, as I said earlier, no single trade is going to make the Lakers any better than first round fodder. You just dont have the depth. You either need to build off of what you have now, or make a trade and build off of that. For the year after this one.

                                Secondly, the Pacers are in much the same situation except they have the depth. Just not the starters.

                                Personally I would pull the trigger and take Brown, Bynum, Cook and Crittenton for JO and get it over with. No trade we make is going to make us anything more than first round fodder as well, so lets at least get some young guys who can make us contenders in two or three years.

                                Bynum, Diogu, Granger, Quis, Tins....
                                Foster, Murphy, Dun, Williams, Crittenton.....

                                You ask me that is a nice place to start rebuilding around.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X