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

The Knicks

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

  • The Knicks

    Is anyone now concerned that the Knicks getting Zack Randolph now become a major contender for the EC chamionship. With Curry, Randolph and Lee playing the 4 and 5 and with Crawford and Richardson playing the 2 and 3 Marbury just has to get these guys the ball and can just be an average point guard.
    Say what you like about IT his team is looking like it could do a great deal of damage next season. Unloading Francis for Randolph was a major coup for Isiah. I'm sure we will hear about the dysfunctionality of these guys but they will also win a lot of games. Dysfunctionality will be in on the east coast.

  • #2
    Re: The Knicks

    This is just strange and a little creepy, no, make that very creepy. I feel wrong just posting this.



    http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/20...uit_print.html



    Garden of sin in suit

    Fired executive's filing tells of sleazy doings by Isiah and Marbury

    BY THOMAS ZAMBITO
    DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

    Posted Saturday, June 30th 2007, 4:00 AM


    Anucha Browne Sanders alleges sexual harassment.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New York Knicks head coach Isiah Thomas.
    Knicks head coach Isiah Thomas urged a team cheerleader to flirt with NBA referees to "make them happy" and Stephon Marbury had sex with a team employee who felt coerced into the liaison, bombshell court papers charge.

    The stunning accusations surfaced in papers filed yesterday by fired Knicks executive Anucha Browne Sanders in a bid to thwart Madison Square Garden's attempt to derail her sex harassment suit.

    The latest charges - dismissed by Knicks brass yesterday - were gathered from depositions that dozens of Garden employees gave during the past year.

    The sordid allegations include:


    Thomas allegedly urged Knicks cheerleader Petra Pope to cozy up to the refs before a game against the Nets in 2004.


    "What she told me was that Isiah asked her to go into the referees' locker room and make them happy," Browne Sanders testified. "I asked her to tell me what that meant and she said, 'Well, he wanted me to flirt with the referees.'"

    She said Pope told her she reluctantly did as she was asked.


    In November 2005 a member of Browne Sanders' staff told her and another female Garden executive that she had sex with Marbury in a car after a boozed-filled night at a "gentleman's club."


    The woman said Marbury textmessaged her a few day later saying, "I want some more of that," according to court documents.

    The woman told her bosses the sex was consensual. But she also said "she did not believe she could say no because of who Marbury is," according to the court documents.


    Browne Sanders claims Marbury called her a "black b----" after she complained that the star guard's cousin - who also was employed by the Knicks - had been making graphic sexual comments to her staff.


    But Knicks brass said in a statement that the suit filed by the team's former senior vice president for marketing and business operations was "riddled with fabrications."

    Browne Sanders, 44, was fired "for poor performance and manipulating subordinates for personal gain," the statement said.

    At one point the Garden was ready to make the case go away with cash, according to court papers. But when Browne Sanders' lawyers asked for $6million in 2005, Garden Chairman Jim Dolan called it "ridiculous" and nixed the payout, the papers said.

    Earlier that year, Browne Sanders was given a $75,000 raise and her annual salary jumped to $250,000. She said she was told she was doing a terrific job and, with the Garden's backing, was named to the Sports Business Journal's list of top professionals.

    She now works for a nonprofit and makes about half of her Garden salary.

    The former Northwestern University hoops star from Brooklyn said she repeatedly clashed with Thomas, who she said told people he loved her when he wasn't calling her a "b----."

    At a practice in October 2005, she claims Thomas said it was "distracting to work with someone who was so attractive."

    In his deposition, Thomas denied any fireworks. "I'm not attracted to her, no," he said.

    tzambito@nydailynews.com

    With Leo Standora
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-30-2007, 09:18 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Knicks

      So to answer your question, no we're not worried about the Knicks.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Knicks

        Randolph and Curry make up probably the softest defensive 4/5 combo in league history...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Knicks

          I'm not afraid unless the league allows two balls to be used in games at the same time, next year.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Knicks

            I think they will be better,but not a worry.And no way for the ECC.
            LoneGranger33 said
            Agreed. As the members of Guns and Roses once said, "every rose has its thorn".

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Knicks

              I'm concerned about what the over/under is for when Randolph gets into trouble.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Knicks

                If we got a shooter we could maybe win 50 games based on offense - with a good coach. I hesitate to say there's no shot at making the finals just because the EC is so weak but in a normal year our top - IF we get a shooter - is the 2nd rd.

                Now if we got a coach who could somehow make the team D-up that would change but we all know we don't have that coach.

                As of right now I'd predict 40-42 wins, a lot of high-scoring games, a 6-8 playoff seed and 1st rd exit. We'll be as offensively talented as any team this side of Phoenix but we'll be one of the 5 worst defensive teams in the league.

                Call us Golden State East.
                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Knicks

                  In a conference where Washington can be successful with that frontcourt, I see no reason why NY can't compete for homecourt. I don't see them being successful in the playoffs, though, unless Crawford were to really catch fire at the right time.

                  When you look at how decimated their roster was by injuries last year, you realize they should have definitely made the playoffs. Randolph for Frye is a huge, huge upgrade (Francis is a non-entity as far as either team is concerned.) If Chandler can come in and have the same kind of impact Balkman did, they're going to be rather good.
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Knicks

                    The Knicks will be worse, not better, with the addition of Randolph. He's a huge ball hog and there's going to be some big-time conflict over touches and shots.

                    Last year in games that Randolph sat out the Blazers played MUCH better. Everyone noticed it (excep the Knicks) and that's a major reason why Randolph was unloaded. Randolph is in the top 2% or 3% of NBA bad guys. It's not just Randolph, but also the creeps he hangs around with. It WILL blow up in New York.

                    http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/ore...530.xml&coll=7

                    Friday, June 29, 2007

                    I t's a rural area, and people sometimes shoot at things in the sticks, so the people who live adjacent to Zach Randolph's home in Stafford will tell you they don't so much mind the occasional sound of gunfire coming from his five-acre property.

                    But the neighbors have grown tired of the late-night gatherings and the sound of all-terrain vehicles racing around at 3 a.m., with screeching women hanging off the back. And they'll tell you that Randolph erected a large, enclosed dog kennel on the property a couple of years ago, and they're not so sure how they feel about that.

                    New York City, betcha can't wait to meet the Hoops Family.

                    Hey, maybe you're busy today dreaming on Greg Oden. Or weighing the trade that sent Zach Randolph, Dan Dickau and Freddie Jones to the Knicks in exchange for Steve Francis and Channing Frye on Thursday.

                    So, yeah, who was the big winner?

                    Randolph's neighbors, of course.

                    Those poor souls thought they were moving to the country to get away from the noise, and the hustle, so they could get some peace and stare at the horizon. Then, they woke up one day and the neighborhood went "2 Fast 2 Furious" on them. Randolph showed up with his posse of sycophant friends who wore diamond-encrusted necklaces declaring themselves the "Hoops Family."

                    On Thursday, Randolph's neighbors got their liberation.

                    Maybe you're surprised at the big choice Thursday. Not Oden over Durant. Principles over Randolph. Because what we've witnessed is the exorcism of a franchise player. Randolph was just jettisoned out of town at 50 cents on the dollar, and the Blazers are smitten with the deal, ready to try and turn another.

                    Before you can even wonder how Frye will give the team depth, and whether Francis' contract (which has two years remaining vs. the four years on Randolph's) gives Portland flexibility, or whether Francis might entertain a buyout, you have to first marvel at how little the Blazers must have thought of Randolph.

                    The franchise didn't want Randolph around Oden. They didn't want him in LaMarcus Aldridge's way. It's obvious they didn't want to go another day, or another minute, waiting for the telephone to ring with a report of Randolph mixed up in some innocent dealing with a prostitute, police, a strip club, a gun or street racing. A guy whose unpredictable character used to fit like a headband around here found himself expendable Thursday.

                    Frye gives the Blazers depth in the front court. He'll fit the kind of culture that general manager Kevin Pritchard loves. You can envision Frye as a role player on a team playing deep in the playoffs. And the guy who calls himself "Stevie Franchise" has two years and $33.6 million remaining on his contract, which means you just bought two expensive years off Randolph's deal. And if the Blazers are serious about getting better sooner, they'll buy out Francis.

                    What you can't do if you're Portland is let Francis hang around the kiddies in your locker room.

                    Remember, when Francis was drafted by the Grizzlies, he was so disappointed he cried. Then, he declared that he would not play for the Grizzlies, who were in Vancouver, B.C., at the time, because it was too far from his home in Maryland, and against God's will. He's also a defensive liability. Also, Francis was suspended for kicking a photographer and refusing to enter the game in the waning moments of a blowout loss.

                    That's only to say, Francis isn't a 25-point pledge kind of guy. It's the most puzzling piece of the trade, until you remember he's rumored to be interested in a buyout. Portland is going to have a difficult time selling Francis to fans because he's going to remind them of everything they loathed in the last decade. Which is why the Blazers should assign a settlement negotiator, not an assistant coach, to work with Francis on how he can best help the Blazers this summer.

                    Sure, Portland could have waited until February's trade deadline to deal Randolph. Sure, the Blazers could have kept shopping, just to see what else was out there. But in the end, what we have here isn't so much a trade as an indictment of the old way of doing business at One Center Court.

                    Randolph's $84 million contract was negotiated by Steve Patterson and John Nash. So was the Darius Miles contract that still has three years and $26 million remaining, which you might argue, pound-for-pound, was the worst contract ever negotiated in Portland if only Miles hadn't gained 40 pounds since he last played. Owner Paul Allen just saved himself $33 million, which would have gone to Randolph in 2009-10 and 2010-11.

                    You can't make Thursday's trade about value, because, on paper, man for man, Portland got ripped off. The Blazers gave up a perennial 20-and-10 player. But if you're looking at the larger picture, if you're weighing the direction of the franchise, if you understand who Randolph was when nobody was looking, you know that something had to be done with Randolph.

                    He didn't fit in anymore.

                    You could tell by the way Brandon Roy looked at him. You could tell by the way management talked about him. You could tell by how his coaches cringed when the ball went into the post and never came out.

                    The bonus here is that Randolph ends up in the Eastern Conference, where he won't someday bump the Blazers out of a playoff spot. It's why Portland wouldn't seriously entertain sending Randolph to Golden State, Denver or Seattle, which expressed interest. And we're all certainly going to get joy out of watching Randolph and Eddy Curry discover during games that there is only one basketball, and two of them.

                    When you sift through the events of Thursday, you understand that Pritchard and Allen view their team as being two years away from completion. They're young, still. But they're good. And you wouldn't mind living next door to them. The Blazers, as is, will contend for the final playoff spot next season, but if we're talking real contention -- the top four seeds in the Western Conference -- you understand that the Blazers have given themselves salary flexibility two years from now.

                    Also, the neighbors finally got some peace.

                    Any of us would have traded for that.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Knicks

                      I'll only be worried about the Knicks if we go up against them in an eating contest.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Knicks

                        Here is what I think about the Knicks trade, they can't be any worse than they were.

                        I feel that Francis and Frye are not good defenders, so can Zach really make them any worse there? Also, Frye is a poor rebounder for a big man and Zach is a very good one, grabs around 10 boards a night.

                        They get rid of Franics, how is he any more of a ball hog than Randolph is?

                        What they have now:

                        PG: Marubry/Robinson/Collins
                        SG: Richardson/Crawford/Jones
                        SF: Lee/Jefferies/Balkman
                        PF: Randolph/Rose
                        C: Curry/James

                        The nice thing is that Lee, Jefferies, and maybe Balkman can play the 4.

                        They still don't have a balanced roster but they have a lot of talent and while Randolph is no good on defense neither was Francis or Frye. At the very least they gain more points and rebounds. Another thing is that people say how turnover prone Randolph is but so is Francis.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Knicks

                          Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                          So to answer your question, no we're not worried about the Knicks.
                          I assume that you mean that while they are more talented than us their lack of team chemistry is greater than ours? Funny I thought our lack of team chemistry was pretty high.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Knicks

                            Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                            I'll only be worried about the Knicks if we go up against them in an eating contest.

                            If we had rookie-year Tinsley along with Harrison, be would be competitive. We could also sign Oliver Miller again as our fifteenth man.
                            The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                            http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                            RSS Feed
                            Subscribe via iTunes

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Knicks

                              Talent-wise, trading Francis' huge contract and Channing "the second-coming of Charles Smith" Frye for Randolph is a home run for Zeke/Dolan.

                              But I'm not really sure it'll make them all that much better. Curry was starting to look really good in the post last year and Zach excels with his back to the basket too. Do you really need a guy posting up on each block?

                              I guess Randolph can place some high post and his face up/mid-range game is pretty good, but it's not like we're talking about David Robinson and Tim Duncan here. He just seems a little redundant here, and is also gonna take even more minutes away from rebounding phenom David Lee, who Zeke already doesn't play enough.
                              Read my Pacers blog:
                              8points9seconds.com

                              Follow my twitter:

                              @8pts9secs

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X