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 Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Bird Responds To O'Neal's Trade Talk

    Originally posted by TheLemonSong View Post
    I can't tell if Bird's responses here are meant to mask/help-build the trade or if he's just flustered...
    Don't you mean FUStrated?
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      #2- I think his ego and friends will have him believing that he will be in (high) demand AND that the list of suitors will include the Pacers. (And I think his ego, especially when combined with point #1, will be plenty to trump his agent).
      I also fully agree that he might opt out. The $ figures have been run on here numerous times, and all tolled, he only stands to lose about $10 million or so over the rest of his career. Yes, that sounds like a lot, but we're talking about a guy who's already made around $100 million and will likely make $60 million more regardless of whether he opts out or not.

      And given the contracts handed out this summer, he might even be right that he'll be better off signign a new, five/six-year deal ASAP. If Rashard's getting $126 million and Mo Williams is getting $52 million, what's JO worth? Has to be at least $70 million over five years. I think he could live with that.
      Read my Pacers blog:
      8points9seconds.com

      Follow my twitter:

      @8pts9secs

      Comment


      • Re: Bird Responds To O'Neal's Trade Talk

        Ya, but honestly. I think Bird wants to do a trade, but he knows LA doesn't want to give em back nothing proper so Bird isn't gonna pull the trigger unless he gets what he wants
        R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

        Comment


        • Re: Bird Responds To O'Neal's Trade Talk

          There still needs to be a link.

          http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/bird_oneal_070806.html
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: CNNSI - Jermaine wants trade to LA or NJ

            Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
            Of course we want Bynum and Odom...but that's nonsense and it has been nonsense since May. It's just too much to ask in the realm of NBA trades. If Hall of Famers are only bringing back those types of packages, then asking for a borderline All Star and an A-class blue chipper is just not happening for our All Star with question marks.

            We're only getting one if this ever happens. And the only one that makes any sense for us is Bynum. He's the one with the Hall of Fame ceiling and Lamar is nothing but a smaller and worse version of the guy we're trading and one who plays a position we've already got covered five times over.

            If we're just gonna trade JO just to trade him, we can do a lot better than Lamar Odom and some draft picks (and I like Lamar).
            No kidding....I completely agree with kept, DD00 and you ( to name a few ) on this.....I really think that the price for an all-star that is being traded was set when KG was traded. It was initially set when AI was traded.....then reconfirmed after KG was traded.

            If JONeal wasn't labeled as injury-prone....something that I fully acknowledge may not happen again ( since no one can predict the future ) but fully aware that it has affected his trade value .....then I could see us getting a better deal that would be justified that is closer to the KG deal. But given that there is a past with him that we cannot deny that has affected JONeal's overall trade value....I just didn't see us getting anything better then an "Expiring Contract+Centerpiece Player+Prospect+future considerations" type deal...which was what I considred the "Kwame+Bynum+Crittenton+Future 1st" offer. But now, I don't think that we can get both Bynum and Crittenton ( if not Bynum at all ) in any deal. JONeal just shot our negotiating leg in the foot.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

              If we can get Kwame, Bynum, Crittenton, and 2 future firsts, I'll be happy. If we get one first instead of two, I'd still do it, but I'd feel like I got taken a little bit.

              Obviously O'Neal's not Garnett, but when you look at the packages, Jefferson is much, much less of a risk compared to Bynum, and Green has more upside compared to Crittenton. Kwame's still got a little in the tank, which can't be said for Theo, which is why I'd be willing to take one 1st instead of two, but I'd do some muttering.

              Anyways, I don't think we need both Odom and Bynum, but we've got to get one of them and a fair bit more. It makes more sense for the Lakers to keep Odom since the idea is to compete NOW and not wait for Bynum to develop.

              Eh, I just want this whole deal to be over. JO better be careful, though. Our FO has stated in the past that if you rock the boat, and the offer between where you want to go and where you'd hate to go are similar, you're going to Atlanta or Charlotte and **** on the Lake Show.

              Comment


              • Re: Bird Responds To O'Neal's Trade Talk

                Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                Well if nothing else Bird has awakened from whatever comatose mental state he has been in this year. This trade if it happens (and I'd say its still a huge if) will define him as a GM.

                I bet he was waiting with the rest of the league to see what happened with KG to increase his leverage. We don't get Odom if we pull the trigger two weeks ago.
                The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                RSS Feed
                Subscribe via iTunes

                Comment


                • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                  I did not believe a trade was for certain going to happen until this most recent exchange. The reason being, in the past, when a Pacers player said something like that, Larry and Donnie both responded with something along the lines of "if so and so wants a trade, going to the media about it isn't the way to handle it...he should have discussed it with us internally" and blah blah blah.

                  You heard no such response from either of them in this case, leading me to believe that JO is for all intents and purposes, no longer a Pacer. If he were in the long term plans, I do believe one of TPTB would have been telling him to put a muzzle on.
                  Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                    Is this quote new?:
                    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2963647

                    O'Neal said the Pacers have been unreasonable in their trade talks with the Lakers.
                    "Larry Bird is a hard man to deal with," O'Neal said. "He tries to make unfair trades. He wants to gut a team, but the Lakers are trying to get over the hump. I want Indiana to benefit, but with some nice young players and draft picks. I want to make it clear that I don't want to gut a team that I come to because then it'll be like I'm in Indiana all over again.

                    JO already talks like he's a Laker, and he is lobbying for what he gets on his NEXT team. JO is ****ing me off now. He can go to Hell.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                      Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                      If we can get Kwame, Bynum, Crittenton, and 2 future firsts, I'll be happy. If we get one first instead of two, I'd still do it, but I'd feel like I got taken a little bit.

                      Obviously O'Neal's not Garnett, but when you look at the packages, Jefferson is much, much less of a risk compared to Bynum, and Green has more upside compared to Crittenton. Kwame's still got a little in the tank, which can't be said for Theo, which is why I'd be willing to take one 1st instead of two, but I'd do some muttering.

                      Anyways, I don't think we need both Odom and Bynum, but we've got to get one of them and a fair bit more. It makes more sense for the Lakers to keep Odom since the idea is to compete NOW and not wait for Bynum to develop.

                      Eh, I just want this whole deal to be over. JO better be careful, though. Our FO has stated in the past that if you rock the boat, and the offer between where you want to go and where you'd hate to go are similar, you're going to Atlanta or Charlotte and **** on the Lake Show.
                      Who are you referring to when you said Green?

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                        I'm still guessing that JO does not get traded this summer. I just see Bird as being too stubborn to trade JO without at least getting another All-Star in return.

                        I mean Bynum could turn into the next Shaq but he could also become the next Stanley Roberts/Benoit Benjamin as well (sure they had a couple of above average and serviceable years but they never fully lived up to their potential). Either way, I think Bird doesn't look at him as a sure thing and he'll need at least one sure-thing player back before he trades JO.

                        We're talking about a guy who made sure he got an All-Star in return for Artest, despite the terrible trade position we were in. If they view JO as having MVP type potential (my guess is that they do) they won't trade him to LA for anything less than Odom + Bynum.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                          Originally posted by JB's Breakout Year View Post
                          Is this quote new?:
                          http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2963647

                          O'Neal said the Pacers have been unreasonable in their trade talks with the Lakers.
                          "Larry Bird is a hard man to deal with," O'Neal said. "He tries to make unfair trades. He wants to gut a team, but the Lakers are trying to get over the hump. I want Indiana to benefit, but with some nice young players and draft picks. I want to make it clear that I don't want to gut a team that I come to because then it'll be like I'm in Indiana all over again.

                          JO already talks like he's a Laker, and he is lobbying for what he gets on his NEXT team. JO is ****ing me off now. He can go to Hell.

                          things like these is why I have never been so high on JO as some of his worshippers....Sounds to me like he wants to make sure this trade becomes as lopsided as possible....

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                            "It's time for me to move on," O'Neal said Sunday at Baron Davis' and Paul Pierce's annual L.A. Stars charity basketball game at USC's Galen Center. "And the Lakers are the team I want Indiana to trade me to."

                            "If I'm here, I'm going to help this team win a championship. We can get the Lakers to elite level," O'Neal believes, adding that his recent surgery to repair a torn meniscus will have him at one hundred percent for the first time in two years. "People need to realize that my last two years weren't down-years. I didn't go into the last two seasons healthy at all. I'm healthy now and, at 28, I'm in my prime. The game is slowing down for me. I understand it a lot more. I'm ready to show people what I can do."


                            These are some pretty clear-cut comments. JO wants out and he wants to go to the Lakers. If this trade doesn't happen both our teams are going to have unhappy superstars. At this point it seems like a deal HAS to be worked out. Hopefully Larry will back off his Odom+Bynum demands so we can get something done and finally put an end to all of this.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                              Since we're all bantering, I'll throw in. BTW, I moved to LA 2.5 years ago from the NE side of indy, and am a lifer Pacers fan. (don't want my location to bias)

                              Lamar Odom was a monster before he got hurt last year. All star numbers in a tough conference. that said, I don't want him as part of the Pacers plans.

                              Kwame wasn't terrible last year. I actually think he hasn't hit his ceiling yet.

                              Bynum is coming along at a pace that I would expect, if not faster.

                              The other two guys I saw play that interested me (not named Kobe) are Farmar and Turiaf. I haven't scene much of JCrit, but judging by the man-crushes on this board, he must be worth 3 Stankos.

                              If we did a deal that sent JO and Harrison to LA for Kwame, Bynum, Turiaf, Farmar or JCrit and pick(s) I would be pleased. Harrison would benefit from a change in venues/ fresh start more than any Pacer.

                              I don't like the NJ deal as I don't see it as an improvement, and we don't really need another 3. If there are draft picks involved, it could sway things I suppose.

                              I'd like to think that the discussions our brass are having are over little things, like additional 2009 2nd round picks or something. I'm ready for us to get a deal done and start altering our course.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                                Originally posted by JB's Breakout Year View Post
                                Is this quote new?:
                                http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2963647

                                O'Neal said the Pacers have been unreasonable in their trade talks with the Lakers.
                                "Larry Bird is a hard man to deal with," O'Neal said. "He tries to make unfair trades. He wants to gut a team, but the Lakers are trying to get over the hump. I want Indiana to benefit, but with some nice young players and draft picks. I want to make it clear that I don't want to gut a team that I come to because then it'll be like I'm in Indiana all over again.

                                JO already talks like he's a Laker, and he is lobbying for what he gets on his NEXT team. JO is ****ing me off now. He can go to Hell.
                                Gut it or not the salaries still have to work.
                                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X