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

AK wants out of Utah

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

  • #91
    Re: AK wants out of Utah

    Sounds like AK47 wants to play in Russia. Maybe he isn't motivated to play in the NBA anymore. If your trading some of the supposed bad contracts like Dun, Murph, Tins to get him fine. I wouldn't give up Granger, Diogu or next years 1st round pick. I'd consider moving Shawne in light of recent off court issues.

    Speaking of Utah, I have always liked Dee Brown and apparently he is expendable and is going to turkey to play? I suspect he'd rather be a Pacer or in the NBA from what rotoworld reports. I am unsure of what the status of his rights with Utah are.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: AK wants out of Utah

      Dun and Foster for AK works, gives them a guy more natural at the SF than AK has been, puts AK in Jeff's place with the Pacers, helps their salary situation, helps the Pacers SF jam situation.

      But the questions then probably become "do you have to add in a first round pick" and "would you add in a first round pick". His threats to walk give the Pacers leverage but I'm not sure it would be enough to avoid adding a pick, which is something I'm not sure they would want to do.

      Honestly though, isn't this AK situation a good litmus for Bird's "we are going to win now" attitude? If that's true then you'd move the pick, if not then it suggests more of a rebuild. That's if anything close to the above catches Utah's interest of course.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: AK wants out of Utah

        I just don't see it happening.

        Utah is also a front-court heavy roster even outside of AK (Okur, Boozer, Harpring, Millsap, Jarron Collins). What they really need is guard help and I imagine if they are actually gonna deal the emo Ivan Drago ("If he cries, he cries"), they'll be looking for at least a Maggette/Ricky Davis-level SG out of the deal. That was their glaring weakness, and even though they did get Almond, they still need help out the perimeter Sloan doesn't seem too too high on Ronnie Brewer and probably doesn't expect big things from Ronnie Price.

        I'm not sure Foster even gets on the court much. Certainly not in front of Harpring, and Millsapp is nearly his equal in the "one-trick-pony" rebounder role. As for Dunleavy, they already have him essentially...only they call him Gorden Giricek.
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:

        @8pts9secs

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: AK wants out of Utah

          Maggette actually seems to make a lot of sense, the 2 is their weakest position and they could use a shooter/penetrator. Plus a Brand/AK frontline would be tough, when Brand gets healthy that could be a good team.
          2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: AK wants out of Utah

            Originally posted by bulldog View Post
            Maggette actually seems to make a lot of sense, the 2 is their weakest position and they could use a shooter/penetrator. Plus a Brand/AK frontline would be tough, when Brand gets healthy that could be a good team.
            magette would make some sense but the jazz really need shooting in their wings which magette doesn't offer. plus it doesn't make sense for the clippers beyond this year. they've got a big hole at PF with brand down, but when he comes back and you're still committed to Kaman at C and you're putting AK at SF again.

            ricky davis in theory would make more sense unless you factor in how jerry sloan feels about him. (redd for the record i know you said a ricky davis type player)
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: AK wants out of Utah

              Another interesting truehoop article, Deron Williams rips into AK, essentially saying he doesn't work hard and he wouldn't pass to him. Seems like AK is going somewhere, if not here.
              http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_6970226
              Originally posted by truehoop
              Deron Williams says Andrei Kirilenko doesn't work as hard as other Jazz players. Williams admits that he is less likely to pass to Kirilenko if another player is open. Weird to see players ripping teammates. Feels like the Kirilenko vs. Jazz divide runs pretty deep.
              2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: AK wants out of Utah

                I just hope it gets sorted out soon as i traded for AK last year and this will be devasting if he leaves for russia which is doubtful.

                I can see maybe Charlotte or Golden State making a run for him... Nuggets as wild cards..... tough to say..
                Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: AK wants out of Utah

                  Originally posted by GO!!!!! View Post
                  Nuggets as wild cards.....
                  I would love to see the Nuggets trade Iverson for AK.

                  Just the thought of Jerry Sloan coaching AI makes me giggle.
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: AK wants out of Utah

                    Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                    Just the thought of Jerry Sloan coaching AI makes me giggle.
                    same goes for k-mart
                    This is the darkest timeline.

                    Comment


                    • Re: AK wants out of Utah

                      Good point Redd. Of course some if it depends on their situation. It's not like the Pacers were in the market for a Scot Pollard type prior to the Miller deal. Sometimes you just want something vs. nothing, if for no other reason than to open up future trade opportunities.

                      I also would like to think/hope that Dunleavy is better as a SF than Giricek, who is really a SG at 6'6". They were trying to play AK at SF and if he goes they lose a lot of SF minutes. That's where Dun would help.

                      In total they would still reduce their payroll even in taking on Dun's deal, and Foster could still net them a backup SG type if they talk to a team like Houston.

                      I'm not calling it a great deal for them, but I do think it's a better option than just letting AK walk. Let's face it, we know from experience that this is a tough position to deal from and that there is little chance AK is returning to Utah.


                      I'm not all that sold that AK is right for Indy, especially given Deron's comments. But he can play defense, that's for sure.


                      Plus this is yet more reason why I didn't like the GS deal. If Utah wants SG help I'd say Jackson fits that more than Dun. I'd bet you might be able to get AK for Jack/Al/Saras...or should I say could have. It was never about keeping him no matter what for me, it was about making a smart deal rather than taking whatever you could get. Of course Ike is going to be a better PF than AK, right?
                      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 09-25-2007, 11:02 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: AK wants out of Utah

                        This deal is on the same level of Garnett, if he starts forcing his hand he will get traded, but unlike boston i don't see the Jazz taking young people and draft picks which is a bonus for us... Jerry Sloan is not a big fan of rookies, so we do have a chance...

                        just depends what.... Like Seth says, Jackson and Harrington...... would have been a fair deal...

                        dunleavy can play.... just depends if he fits there system...

                        I'd trade next years draft pick for him....
                        Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

                        Comment


                        • Re: AK wants out of Utah

                          Originally posted by GO!!!!! View Post
                          I'd trade next years draft pick for him....
                          Are you serious?

                          We're finally approaching a draft where we have a shot at landing a *real* good point guard. A type of point guard that can be very effective in today's NBA.

                          Our team, as currently constructed, will be in the running for one of those guys if the balls land the right way (just my opinion).

                          On the other hand, if we were to trade away that pick for AK47, we'd be right where we always are. Right smack dab in the middle of mediocrity. He's not going to be that piece that miraculously puts us over the top and into the upper echelon of teams. Add to the fact that he's injury prone (meaning he might not even play for us the rest of the season), and has a ridiculous contract (just what we need), I see no reason for giving up that pick.

                          Comment


                          • Re: AK wants out of Utah

                            He'd be a want, not a need. We need a point guard in next years draft more than we'd need AK47 with the roster we have now.

                            Comment


                            • Re: AK wants out of Utah

                              Agree that he's not worth this year's pick.

                              But he's worth Dunleavy and change. And I can't imagine them getting much more than that.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • Re: AK wants out of Utah

                                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                                I just don't see it happening.

                                Utah is also a front-court heavy roster even outside of AK (Okur, Boozer, Harpring, Millsap, Jarron Collins). What they really need is guard help and I imagine if they are actually gonna deal the emo Ivan Drago ("If he cries, he cries"), they'll be looking for at least a Maggette/Ricky Davis-level SG out of the deal. That was their glaring weakness, and even though they did get Almond, they still need help out the perimeter Sloan doesn't seem too too high on Ronnie Brewer and probably doesn't expect big things from Ronnie Price.

                                I'm not sure Foster even gets on the court much. Certainly not in front of Harpring, and Millsapp is nearly his equal in the "one-trick-pony" rebounder role. As for Dunleavy, they already have him essentially...only they call him Gorden Giricek.
                                i don't know about that. foster is a far superior defender to millsap. in fact, foster will probably be the best defender on the jazz outside of ak. and giricek is also in sloan's doghouse.

                                here's a somewhat improved deal - dunleavy, quis, and foster for ak and giricek. quis at least addresses their sg need. and even taking dun's deal into account, they save quite a bit of salary in the deal.


                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                Plus this is yet more reason why I didn't like the GS deal. If Utah wants SG help I'd say Jackson fits that more than Dun. I'd bet you might be able to get AK for Jack/Al/Saras...or should I say could have. It was never about keeping him no matter what for me, it was about making a smart deal rather than taking whatever you could get. Of course Ike is going to be a better PF than AK, right?
                                well then, we'll just wait for golden state to trade jack/al/filler for ak...

                                but in any case i imagine sloan would rather be getting dunleavy rather than jackson in any trade. somehow i imagine dunleavy to be the kind of player who'd get along with an old school coach like sloan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X