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

Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

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

  • #16
    Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

    given how hard JOB runs practices... i kinda think trading for curry is a bad idea.


    Former Bull Eddy Curry took a shot at Chicago GM John Paxson for his timing on the Scott Skiles firing.

    "It was crazy they let him go Christmas Eve," Curry said.

    Paxson would not give Curry a long-term deal because of his irregular heartbeat. Curry is not a fan of Paxson - or of Skiles.

    "He's extremely hard on you, especially (when) you're going as hard as you can and he continues to push us," Curry said. "I'm pretty sure you can only take so much."

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/01082008...nch_457512.htm


    also, when was the last time sam smith was right about anything?
    This is the darkest timeline.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

      I strongly dislike Curry. I'd rather something like this.

      JO/Murph/Tins/Hulk for
      Starbury/Rose/Lee/Balkman/Collins/Morris.

      NY has no picks this year, and no 2nd-rounder next year.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
        I strongly dislike Curry. I'd rather something like this.

        JO/Murph/Tins/Hulk for
        Starbury/Rose/Lee/Balkman/Collins/Morris.

        NY has no picks this year, and no 2nd-rounder next year.
        New York actually has their own first round pick this year. (#3 right now)
        Utah only gets it if it's 24th or beyond. It's top 23 protected.

        There's just no way I see the Knicks not having their own pick.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

          More on NY.

          The following article speculates that Isiah is wanting to get fired.

          I've thought for some time isiah's been messing up to get a good pick in the draft and Dolan was down with it, thus the reason Isiah hasn't been fired.

          It would appear everyone in NY wants Isiah out of the Knick job, including Isiah, and Dolan. The difference is Isiah wants to be fired so he can collect his full contract, and Dolan wants him to just quit, so he won't have to pay him. That means this could get interesting.

          http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/sports/kings/

          Question: Has there been conjecture about an Artest/Shareef (Abdur-Rahim)/(Kenny) Thomas trade to New York for Stephon Marbury with David Lee and/or a first round pick? This would free-up $21 million after next season. It would also allow the Kings to trade Bibby to Miami for Udonis Haslem, Jason Williams and a draft pick reducing salaries by $9 million after this season. When Kevin Martin's new contract kicks-in next year, the Kings will have to pay a luxury tax. Marbury, Martin, Salmons, Haslem, Miller starting with Beno, Francisco Garcia and Mikki Moore/Lee off the bench is solid and the picks and cap room after 2008-09 facilitate a major improvement in the roster. - H Cardinal, Carmichael, Calif.

          Answer: Truthfully, I don't have the time to check all your work but I like where you're going for the most part. First off, I'm wondering if everything regarding New York is on hold again. Numerous league sources have informed me that embattled Knicks coach Isiah Thomas has been turning down decent deals left and right, meanwhile driving those around him in Knicks Land batty and, according to the New York Daily News, possibly pushing owner Joe Dolan to fire him. They have been dangling Jamal Crawford in discussions, but I'm told they still won't give up David Lee. That much is bad news for the Kings, who have shown an interest in Lee in the past and would certainly want him in any Artest deal.
          -------------



          So, what if Isiah is wanting to make trades, but Dolan is telling him no? Thus Isiah secures a good draft pick for the Knicks and then Dolan fires him after the season, or after the Knicks are assured or a good lottery pick.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            That is interesting. I have to give it some thought .

            There was something about Tinsley's game last night against the Warriors that reminded me of the Jamaal from the past two or three seasons than the Jamaal from this season. Not sure why, but his defense was behind bad again and he seemed to have a really weird look on his face.
            I thought the same thing UB. I think he might have taken it personally when Deiner went nuts against the Kings and Tins only got 5 minutes in the second half of that game.

            Not sure of this speculation, but maybe he has a power trip, whether it be AJ, Saras, Army, McLeod, or now Deiner and Owens getting his minutes. Maybe he sees he is not the heir apparent again and feels threatened again. If thats the case, then he has proven again that he can be a horrible teammate. Kills chemistry on the floor and in the locker room.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

              As I mentioned in the postgame thread Tinsley was somehwere else last night. That was the first game he's really given less than 100% in a long time. (The lazy passing, no d, and bickering with Dunleavy and Granger would be my 3 examples of him mailing it in). I have it on good authority that he bolted from the locker room very quickly last night. If these type of games start piling up than we definitely have to move him. It's sad because the Pacers have given Tinsley chance after chance to turn it around and he refuses to change.

              I know it sounds crazy, but I'd take a chance on Marbury for at least the rest of the season. We only have two ways to go with Starbury running the point: He either a) turns it around, plays up to his potential and gets us to the playoffs or b) continues to be the same old Starbury, meaning we continue to suck and drop down even farther record wise which would give us a legit shot at Eric Gordon.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                I want david lee....
                If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
                [/center]
                @thatguyjoe84

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                  JT is about as stable emotionally as T.O. is. He's only happy
                  when he's being coddled and everything is going his way.

                  If the Knicks want him, I'd be on the phone ASAP.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                    Could it be Tinsley is uncoachable.. Isiah was finished with him. Rick was finished with him. Now there's friction and we're on our 3rd coach??

                    This is the kind of crap that has the Pacers in the mess they are in now with fans. We try and coddle the problem rather than just taking our medicine, cutting out the cancer, and then moving on.

                    We hold out WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY past the expiration date on a player, likely over-valuing him along the way, and then end up thoroughly behind the 8-Ball when the festering problem is spotlighted for the whole league to see.

                    Until management and/or ownership changes that modus operandi, we're screwed. And if they don't change it they'll end up blaming fans for their need to move the franchise when in reality to find the real reason, all they need to do is look in the mirror.

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                      Originally posted by bnd45 View Post
                      As I mentioned in the postgame thread Tinsley was somehwere else last night. That was the first game he's really given less than 100% in a long time. (The lazy passing, no d, and bickering with Dunleavy and Granger would be my 3 examples of him mailing it in). I have it on good authority that he bolted from the locker room very quickly last night. If these type of games start piling up than we definitely have to move him. It's sad because the Pacers have given Tinsley chance after chance to turn it around and he refuses to change.

                      I know it sounds crazy, but I'd take a chance on Marbury for at least the rest of the season. We only have two ways to go with Starbury running the point: He either a) turns it around, plays up to his potential and gets us to the playoffs or b) continues to be the same old Starbury, meaning we continue to suck and drop down even farther record wise which would give us a legit shot at Eric Gordon.

                      My Tinsley tolerence level is very low. I do not like hearing that. I hate doing this and I often criticize others for making such assumptions based upon a very short glimpse - but Tinsley did not look too happy on the bench in the second half of the Kings game. He probably was not happy with being replaced by Travis.

                      The Pacers basically gave this team to Tinsley this season - he's been allowed to play exactly as he always wanted - but it appears he might be throwing one of his notorious fits. (anyone want to make any bets on whether he plays Wednesday night)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                        Are you suggesting that JT's sinus problems might flare up during the flight home?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                          Originally posted by bnd45 View Post
                          As I mentioned in the postgame thread Tinsley was somehwere else last night. That was the first game he's really given less than 100% in a long time. (The lazy passing, no d, and bickering with Dunleavy and Granger would be my 3 examples of him mailing it in). I have it on good authority that he bolted from the locker room very quickly last night. If these type of games start piling up than we definitely have to move him. It's sad because the Pacers have given Tinsley chance after chance to turn it around and he refuses to change.

                          I know it sounds crazy, but I'd take a chance on Marbury for at least the rest of the season. We only have two ways to go with Starbury running the point: He either a) turns it around, plays up to his potential and gets us to the playoffs or b) continues to be the same old Starbury, meaning we continue to suck and drop down even farther record wise which would give us a legit shot at Eric Gordon.
                          Stephon would be trading for worse, that is the wrong move, BY FAR, imho. Thats just worsening your position for the future.

                          However, IF you are going to trade Tins, which you almost can't still because you don't have ANYONE that can play the position, full time, but NOW is the time to do it. His value has to be higher right now then its been in a long while. If you even had a Lester Conner or a Anthony Johnson or you know decent consistent legit back up, you could do it without it looking like a white flag.

                          I think Bird will do nothing, which his mindset needs to be NOT to take on additional years or contracts at this point.

                          The ideal trade for Bird is an expiring contract and a role playing bench guy, clearly.

                          It really has gotten to the point where you are trying to unload contracts, not for cap space because honestly no one cares if how much we pay these guys, we want a winner and as has been pointed out, space means nothing if you can't get impact guys to sign. The point for unloading contracts is to stop being stuck in the middle, its that simple.

                          They aren't going for a championship with this group, no matter what, its more than one great trade away from doing so.

                          I think if you can get a guy like Lee or Balkman, its perfect. A role player you can keep for a decent amount and is a difference maker who will grow, while they suck and you can bring in some young talent through the draft to start over. Eric Gordon type is exactly right, thats where their head needs to be now because stuck in the middle is by far the worse place to be.

                          Has Mardy Collins become a player, I thought he was really bad early in his career, maybe he's turned a corner?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            We hold out WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY past the expiration date on a player, likely over-valuing him along the way, and then end up thoroughly behind the 8-Ball when the festering problem is spotlighted for the whole league to see.

                            Until management and/or ownership changes that modus operandi, we're screwed. And if they don't change it they'll end up blaming fans for their need to move the franchise when in reality to find the real reason, all they need to do is look in the mirror.

                            -Bball
                            I'm not saying I disagree with you (not saying I agree entirely either ) but in the case of JT, it's not like he's had any trade value for about three years now. About half a season after he signed that extension it became obvious we gave him too many years and that is gonna scare most teams off. I'm pretty confident in saying that I doubt there has been virtually any interest in Tinsley by any GM in this League for quite a while now and, in fact, his long contract is actually a negative asset in any trade scenario (as in, "if you take our Jamaal problem, we'll take your Murphy problem" type negative asset).
                            Read my Pacers blog:
                            8points9seconds.com

                            Follow my twitter:

                            @8pts9secs

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                              Whatever happend to the "new coach honeymoon" we were promised? I thought we were supposed to have a good year based upon that alone. If this is "good" what would the year have been like without a new coach???
                              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                                I'm not saying I disagree with you (not saying I agree entirely either ) but in the case of JT, it's not like he's had any trade value for about three years now. About half a season after he signed that extension it became obvious we gave him too many years and that is gonna scare most teams off. I'm pretty confident in saying that I doubt there has been virtually any interest in Tinsley by any GM in this League for quite a while now and, in fact, his long contract is actually a negative asset in any trade scenario (as in, "if you take our Jamaal problem, we'll take your Murphy problem" type negative asset).
                                We've had the option of sitting Tinsley until he rots or his legend grows (whichever comes first) while we move on with other options. Instead, we keep making moves with Tinsley in the picture. There's always the buyout option. And we don't know that someone somewhere wouldn't make a trash for trash trade. As long as the trash is not a malcontent then we'd not be hurt by that. Just getting rid of Tinsley and forcing us to start dealing with a post-Tinsley Pacer team would be a major start in repairing the chasm between fans and the Pacers.

                                Plus, you have to go back to look at even offering the extension too. My point wasn't just about where we are now, it's how we got here.

                                Is there anyone left who doesn't think Tinsley is the "bad egg" Reggie referred to?

                                -Bball
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X