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

Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

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

  • Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/12062007...437.htm?page=1


    SOURCES: 'ON-STRIKE' KIDD DECIDES TO SIT OUT
    By FRED KERBER
    PrintEmailDigg ItRedditPermalinkStory Bottom

    December 6, 2007 -- Jason Kidd was "on strike," last night several team sources claimed, and he essentially called in sick, perhaps in an effort to force a trade from the Nets or get a contract extension.

    Coach Lawrence Frank said Kidd phoned him complaining of a migraine yesterday at about 2 p.m. Kidd never showed for last night's 100-93 defeat against the Knicks, also short-handed, in the Meadowlands.

    Maybe it was the contract extension he sought and did not receive. Maybe it is the general state of the team. Maybe it is a desire for a trade. Whatever the reason, whatever the cause, Kidd chose a game against the division rival Knicks to state his case. And the Nets certainly proved how much they need Kidd, losing to the 6-11 Knicks who were without Eddy Curry and Stephon Marbury.

    "He's on strike," on team source said.

    Kidd's teammates were tight-lipped, though one claimed, "I can't picture Jason doing that. I would be disappointed if he did."

    But another source said the Nets were planning on - if not already - talking to Dallas, the Lakers and perhaps Cleveland about a trade. Kidd nearly was traded to the Lakers last February.

    Asked after the game about Kidd, Frank said, "Right now my thoughts are with this game."

    The Nets (9-10, 4-7 at home) were drastically short-handed all evening and played the first half with eight available bodies. Josh Boone, down with a migraine - he has a history of the ailment - was on the bench for the second half but did not play. Jamal Crawford scored 29 and Zach Randolph had 25 for the Knicks. Richard Jefferson scored 31 points and Vince Carter had 19 for the Nets.

    Kidd's absence immediately caused some consternation within the organization because of the All-Star's recent unhappiness over the Nets rejecting his camp's bid for a one-year, $13 million contract extension. Kidd vented about the team recently in Utah, claiming the club possessed a glass jaw while expressing doubts about the future. After a sit-down with team president Rod Thorn, Kidd backed off and proclaimed all was fine.

    Which made last night's timing puzzling. Kidd loves beating the Knicks. The Nets are 23-2 including playoffs, against the Knicks with Kidd since he arrived. And Kidd has been durable. He hadn't missed a game since Feb. 14 last season, at Toronto when a back kept him out. That was the final game before All-Star weekend and Kidd returned after the break.

    So when he didn't show, speculation was rampant. Kidd played 30 minutes Tuesday in Cleveland and chatting with LeBron James afterward.

    There was a pretty good team in the infirmary or at home for reasons personal and medical last night. For the Knicks, Curry was lost to a sprained ankle and Mar bury was home with family, pre paring to bury his fa ther today. For the Nets, Antoine Wright (shoul der) sat a second straight game. Nenad Krstic has been shut down. Carter (strained calf) played after an MRI exam was negative.

    So Eddie Gill (four points, fouled out) started for the ninth time in his career - first as a Net - at point for Kidd. With Wright out, the Nets were down to one perimeter player, Bostjan Nachbar, plus Jamaal Magloire and Sean Williams.

    Without Kidd, the Nets struggled terribly on offense. Open shots were rare. Made shots even more rare - they had seven assists at halftime. That wasn't even one assist per player. With Randolph and Crawford getting out to quick starts and with the Knicks smothering Carter and Jefferson, the Nets trailed, 51-42, at halftime. The Knicks led by 14 in the fourth and the Nets got to within five, but stalled.

    With their quick start, the Knicks led 20-10 before nine minutes expired. It was the eighth straight game and 9th time in 11 games total that the Nets trailed by 10 or more points at home.

    As if the injuries weren't trouble enough, the Nets saw half of their available team - Malik Allen, Jason Collins, Gill and Williams - all saddled with three fouls by halftime.

    *

    Nets guard Marcus Williams (foot) worked out on consecutive days for the first time. He could practice Saturday.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

  • #2
    Re: Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

    Any other time, I'd have said go after him. But now, I just don't see it unless they're letting him go on the cheap.

    If they'd take Murphy, though...
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

      Eddie Gill started for them last night, since DA and Marcus were both out as well. He fouled out in 24 minutes. You'd think Frank would know to play him at the 3. :shakehead:

      [edit] It was also NY's first road win of the season.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

        if we only had the pieces. Kidd would make a nice backup PG

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

          Too expensive. Bad character. Is rumored to be missing the games because things aren't going his way? He's 35 years old and already gets 40 million for the next two years.
          I'm in these bands
          The Humans
          Dr. Goldfoot
          The Bar Brawlers
          ME

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

            Kidd is still very good and has at least a couple years left in him. I think this explains why the Cavs signed Varejao because they will have more pieces to trade for Kidd. If he wants to play for with another superstar, he isn't going to L.A because of Fisher. Cavs is really the only one who makes since. Lebron and Kidd could be dangerous.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

              I don't believe it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

                http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3144197
                The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                RSS Feed
                Subscribe via iTunes

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

                  So... non-story.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    Any other time, I'd have said go after him. But now, I just don't see it unless they're letting him go on the cheap.

                    If they'd take Murphy, though...
                    Murphy for Kidd would be nice.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

                      Vecsey has an interesting take on this whole thing. He leaves a lot up to your own interpretation.

                      http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...____746415.htm



                      THAT PLAYER SITTING AGAINST THAT TEAM? JUST DOESN’T MAKE SENSE
                      By PETER VECSEY


                      December 7, 2007 -- WHAT'S left of my mind boggles. What possessed a nameless Net official (or two?) to indict Jason Kidd on charges of withholding his services Wednesday night against the Knicks?
                      It's unimaginable to think an upstanding citizen of such stainless character would betray his team.

                      Since when is failing to provide a doctor's note automatic cause to conclude his migraine headache story is counterfeit?

                      We know for a fact Kidd was furious when Rod Thorn refused his request (“Please. Pretty please!") to be traded to the Lakers or the Cavaliers at the start of the Nets' west coast Thanksgiving trip, but angry enough to abandon Richard Jefferson, Vince Carter and Company?

                      Notions like that don't get any more slanderous.

                      Why now cop an attitude? It's not as if owner Bruce Ratner recently refused to extend his contract a year or two past next season. Contrary to widespread reports, that rebuff actually took place before the season began.

                      (By the way, Kidd will be three dozen years of age at the end of the current deal. The question is, where will the Nets franchise be - New Jersey, Brooklyn or Chavez Ravine?)

                      Somebody as worldly as Jonathan Supranowitz, the Knicks' male secretary, will have to explain to me how those two rejection notices translate into postponement-of-the-game vindictiveness.

                      Why would a monster the Nets joyfully completed the creation of since joining them July 18, 2001 go “on strike" two months after being told no for the first time in his 13-year career and two weeks after being told no for the second time?

                      Should we really accept that Kidd whose every wish and whim to now was the Nets' command, is capable of brandishing such an impure motive?

                      Why would someone who has always played hard and hurt, suddenly decide to stage a one-game sit-down?

                      It doesn't make sense.

                      Especially since Kidd had made the Knicks his personal pin cushion since showing up and had another chance to prick a sitting-duck squad without Stephon Marbury and Eddy Curry, not to mention get a road win.

                      Additionally, the depleted now 9-10 Nets (all of one victory against an above five hundred, Lakers in LA), urgently needed a confidence builder at home. This was a chance to go above equilibrium for the first time since winning four of the season's first five games.

                      The Nets had been so schizoid, Kidd had started to wonder if there was any light at the end of the Lincoln Tunnel.

                      Again, Kidd's unfaithfulness to his team and his teammates just doesn't make sense.

                      That's far too much selfishness than even I normally expect from a professional athlete.

                      What's more, Kidd categorically denied it at yesterday's hastily convened press conference. And Thorn avidly buys into the Excedrin Headache Number 1 excuse.

                      Does anything in their past suggest we shouldn't believe either person?

                      Whoops; the jury is hereby instructed to disregard the above question.

                      Maybe Kidd was holding out in hopes I'd return to the beat.

                      Maybe Kidd was protesting the major loss of Ed Stefanski to the 76ers (Pat Riley and I want to know why the Nets didn't get some form of compensation) and this was his way of nominating himself for the vacant GM gig.

                      Maybe Kidd simply was tinkering with the Nets' roster by making himself unavailable. Hey, we all can't be model disenfranchises like Camp Cablevision.

                      Upon further examination, I might've hit on something considering how many cronies of Kidd he placed on the Nets' payroll; Alonzo Mourning and Rodney Rogers are the first two which come to mind.

                      A hundred and four percent of the Garden's State's politicians are jealous.

                      I know what you're saying; this column leaves a lot of room for interpretation and you're correct. In the final analysis, I guess what I'm saying is, if you want to find peace and harmony in Jersey, visit the McGreeveys.

                      peter.vecsey@nypost.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Vecsey has an interesting take on this whole thing. He leaves a lot up to your own interpretation.

                        You found that article interesting? I guess that's open for interpretation too.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

                          Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                          You found that article interesting? I guess that's open for interpretation too.
                          It wasn't one of his better efforts

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

                            Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                            Too expensive. Bad character. Is rumored to be missing the games because things aren't going his way? He's 35 years old and already gets 40 million for the next two years.

                            Has Kidd had other character issues, I can't think of any?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Jason Kidd "on strike" from Nets...

                              Originally posted by BoomBaby31 View Post
                              Has Kidd had other character issues, I can't think of any?
                              Hitting his wife...
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X