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

Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

    BRYANT HOT FOR SUNS, SPURS

    May 30, 2004 -- FOR those dream weavers who believe a fourth championship will entice Kobe Bryant to remain a Laker for at least the life of new seven-year contract, prepare to be disappointed.
    "I know he wants out of L.A. in the worst way," swears one of the few people who would know something so serious.

    By L.A., my informant means the Lakers, not the city; Kobe's thought process hasn't ruled out my Paper Clips.

    "Yeah, but I don't think that's going to happen," the source added, playing a little dodge ball. "Of all the teams who own ample salary cap room, the Clippers are a long shot."

    Meanwhile, Denver and Utah "have no shot," stressed the source.

    "If he goes [oh, great, now it's an if] it wouldn't surprise me if Kobe chooses between the Suns and the Spurs."

    *

    Decision makers and swayers representin' both the Clips and Hawks disclose and confirm there's meaningful conversation regarding a swap of elite first round choices.

    To nobody's shock or awe, Atlanta's primary objective is to place itself in position to draft local schoolboy sensation Dwight Howard. In order to accomplish that goal it must, at the minimum, advance to the second overall pick owned by L.A., since it appears Emeka Okafor will be selected first by the Magic.

    Although the Clips might be able to find room in their lineup for a 6-10 power tool, their pressing need is for a point guard. The idea, which may soon be realized, is to swap No. 2 for Nos. 6 & 17 and harvest either Wisconsin's 6-3 Devin Harris or 6-7 teenager Shaun Livingston with the highest pick.

    *

    Byron Scott must feel like a prisoner of war the way Stephen A. Smith interrogated him Friday evening. His hardest question was his first: "Why the New Orleans Hornets?" Because it was the only team that offered Scott a head-coaching job or was going to offer him one, you fool.

    Stephen A(nal) never has intersected with integrity. Greg Anthony, meanwhile, thoroughly impugned his impartiality regarding Scott with the following decree: "His hiring gives the franchise credibility and stability."

    If true, how does the ESPN analyst explain the two-year insurgence by Jason & The Argonauts, who flat out quit on their coach earlier this season?

    The least Anthony should've done was mention it and haul up the players on charges, if he believes them deserving of discredit. The least Anthony should've done was refer to that contaminated matter as well as Scott's portrayal by an assortment of anonymous members of New Jersey's organization as an unprepared sloth. Again, he couldn't brand it nonsense, if that's what he believes.

    Instead Anthony shamelessly ignored Scott's heavy baggage and tainted reputation.

    Naturally, no one in the studio called him out on it.

    In the humble estimation of Stephen A(nal) and Anthony, Scott was the best candidate for the Hive Master out there.

    Either that's an indictment on the coaching profession, a reflection of the person (owner George Shinn; picking the coach before the GM is butt backwards) responsible for the appointment, or we've heard quite enough from the Barrens of Basketball.

    Scott, it says here, will be run out of New Orleans within two seasons. If the elderly and chronically injured Hornets could barely squeak into the Eastern Conference playoffs, how fast do you think it'll take Western competition to expose and exploit his flaws?

    The way ESPN and TNT are conducting business these days, you can no longer be the worst commentator on the air; you can only be among the worst. Presenting Michele Tafoya. During Friday's telecast ESPN's sideline reporter ("If it's news, it's news to me") breathlessly offered listeners this update: "Hey, guys, Ben Wallace's six brothers are real proud of him now ... Back to you, guys."

    How Clockwork has been able to play all these years while shaming his family is fodder for a future news flash.

    *

    If Jamaal Tinsley's ailing left hamstring deactivates him for Game 5 and beyond, look for the Pistons' backcourt, especially its second unit, to ratchet up the defensive pressure significantly on dribbling-impaired Anthony Johnson. Perhaps the Pacers might be able to get away with employing rusty Kenny Anderson against Lindsey Hunter and Mike James, but, as you saw in Game 4, Chauncey Billups wasted no time in using and abusing him.

    The Hawks received permission from the Pacers to interview associate coach Mike Brown for their head job when Indy's season ends ... Twenty replays later and ESPN's analysts have yet to point out why Jermaine O'Neal, fighting for a rebound, landed so awkwardly on his left knee; Rip Hamilton planted his backside into J.O.'s back, thus he was bent rearward when his feet touched the floor ... Austin Croshere (14 points on 5-8 FG in his first start in two seasons) is the only player in NBA history who turns a whiter shade of pink when overly exerting himself.

    Does anyone jump on passes 20 feet from the hoop more than Reggie Miller? Have you ever seen Al Harrington take more than two dribbles on a fast break after a rebound and not turn it over or commit a charge? When will the Pacers learn to stop the dribbler? That's the first thing you're taught in organized ball. Are we sure some of these guys didn't come into the pros straight out of grammar school?

    *

    I see where Michael Jackson's trial has been set for Sept. 13. Tough timing, since it effectively eliminates anyone from taking a chance on him in the free-agent market.

    According to a source in the know, Kobe Bryant wants to leave the Lakers and would strongly consider both the Phoenix Suns and San Antonio Spurs.

    http://www.nypost.com/sports/22004.htm
    Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

    So the Spurs have a shot at either Kobe or T-Mac...hmmm - they won't be stacked!?!

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

      I hope Mike doesn't take the Atlanta job.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

        So the Spurs have a shot at either Kobe or T-Mac...hmmm - they won't be stacked!?!
        Well, at least we know the Spurs can't get both of them. Someone in the East had better make a serious bid for TMac (read: Indy or Detroit). If both players were to land in the West next season, the East will be left behind for several more years.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

          I'd prefer that Brown stay with the Pacers, but if he does take a head coaching job, I'd kind of like it to be with the Hawks, albeit for largely selfish reasons. It would give me a good reason to to follow and root for the Hawks more now that I'm down here in Atlanta. It's been tough to have even a passing interest in them.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

            That would be a great hire for the Hawks.

            But Mike Brown needs to be careful, the NBA is littered with young coaches who took a bad first head coaching job and never got another chance.

            I realize Mike Brown is not going to get the Lakers job or Kings job, but he nees to think long term and if he takes the hawks job and fails through no fault of his own, he may not ever get another chance.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

              So the Spurs have a shot at either Kobe or T-Mac...hmmm - they won't be stacked!?!
              On a similar not, I dont now if this was poster here, but I saw at OS (operationsports) that the Mavs have contacted Magic about No. 1 pick.

              also


              McGrady was asked just what it would take for him to stay in Orlando.

              "That would take, like, a big man who gets 15 [points] and 10 [rebounds] every night and blocks shots . . . to have a defensive stopper on the wing, a solid point guard and a guy who can knock down open jump shots to prevent the double-teams," he said.
              Hmm...we have the big man (JO), the defensive stopper on the wing (Ronnie), and the guy who can knock down open shots (Reggie).

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

                I was watching ESPN last night and david Aldridge was on and they were talking about McGrady, and without being prompted or asked DA spoke up and say don't discount the Pacers chances of getting McGrady

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

                  Twenty replays later and ESPN's analysts have yet to point out why Jermaine O'Neal, fighting for a rebound, landed so awkwardly on his left knee; Rip Hamilton planted his backside into J.O.'s back, thus he was bent rearward when his feet touched the floor ...
                  Is this true? Here I've been blaming Big Ben...

                  Definately an undercut, though. Kind of disgusting that ESPN said nothing about it.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

                    I was watching ESPN last night and david Aldridge was on and they were talking about McGrady, and without being prompted or asked DA spoke up and say don't discount the Pacers chances of getting McGrady
                    I also saw that. It will be interesting to see.
                    God that would be awesome to have him with JO and RonRon.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

                      I was watching ESPN last night and david Aldridge was on and they were talking about McGrady, and without being prompted or asked DA spoke up and say don't discount the Pacers chances of getting McGrady
                      I also saw that. It will be interesting to see.
                      God that would be awesome to have him with JO and RonRon.
                      It would, but Im still skeptical as to who we would have to give up
                      Either it's people we can live with parting with, or the deal never happens. I'm fine either way at this point.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

                        When will the Pacers learn to stop the dribbler? That's the first thing you're taught in organized ball. Are we sure some of these guys didn't come into the pros straight out of grammar school?

                        http://www.nypost.com/sports/22004.htm
                        I about went horse from yelling "STOP THE BALL!" the other night. ed:
                        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

                        • #13
                          Re: Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

                          IMO, I think if it does happen, it will involve either Harrington, Tinsley, Bender, Croshere/Pollard (experience) and a draft pick. I cant complain either way, its just that I am kind of big on team chemistry, and when you have had a team together for 3 years, and they just get out of the first round..............
                          This is pure homerific thinking. Harrington, Tinsley, Bender or Croshere ain't gonna cut it. You have to consider what teams like Detroit, Houston and SA can offer for McGrady. Detroit has no true star/franchise player so they might be willing to part with some substantial talent to get him—either Prince, Billups, Hamilton, Okur, Darko and yes, even Ben. That's far more attractive to me than Harrington, Tinsley, Bender or Croshere. Houston has Francis. SA has Parker, Ginobili, etc.

                          We'd have to consider at the very least parting with Ron. You'd also have to look at it as a preventative move. We can't allow Detroit to get McGrady. Nor do we want a West coast team to get him. Losing Ron would be tough, but a lineup consisting of JO, Al and McGrady would be pretty deadly. We'd have one of the best inside/outside combos in the league.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

                            IMO, I think if it does happen, it will involve either Harrington, Tinsley, Bender, Croshere/Pollard (experience) and a draft pick. I cant complain either way, its just that I am kind of big on team chemistry, and when you have had a team together for 3 years, and they just get out of the first round..............
                            This is pure homerific thinking. Harrington, Tinsley, Bender or Croshere ain't gonna cut it. You have to consider what teams like Detroit, Houston and SA can offer for McGrady. Detroit has no true star/franchise player so they might be willing to part with some substantial talent to get him—either Prince, Billups, Hamilton, Okur, Darko and yes, even Ben. That's far more attractive to me than Harrington, Tinsley, Bender or Croshere. Houston has Francis. SA has Parker, Ginobili, etc.

                            We'd have to consider at the very least parting with Ron. You'd also have to look at it as a preventative move. We can't allow Detroit to get McGrady. Nor do we want a West coast team to get him. Losing Ron would be tough, but a lineup consisting of JO, Al and McGrady would be pretty deadly. We'd have one of the best inside/outside combos in the league.
                            I don't think I'd give up Ron for T-Mac.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Vescey - Hawks have permission to interview Mike Brown/more Pacers

                              Ron's defense and intensity is too valuable to give up. Not to mention he gives us 18ppg to top that off.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X