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

Insider 1/29/04

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

  • Insider 1/29/04

    Will Kidd be the next Net to go?

    By Chad Ford
    NBA Insider
    Send an Email to Chad Ford Thursday, January 29
    Updated: January 29
    9:55 AM ET

    Chat with NBA Insider Chad Ford, Noon ET

    Why the obsession over Jason Kidd's role in firing Byron Scott?

    Rod Thorn denies it. Kidd is adamant he had nothing to do with it. Scott feels like he and Kidd are friends. But just about everyone in the media believes all three men are lying through their teeth on the subject.

    Will we ever get to the bottom of the mystery? More importantly, do we really need to?

    Say what you will about Scott's two consecutive Finals appearances, but this season's Nets, to put it delicately, stink. The fire and passion the team had the last two years are gone. Is that Scott's fault? Probably. The players? Probably.

    My guess is that after two straight beatings in the Finals, the loss of Alonzo Mourning dampened spirts to the point where the Nets took a look at the Western Conference and collectively said, "Why bother?"

    How many times do you climb Mount Everest knowing that, despite your best effort, you're not going to reach the summit with the team you have?

    Scott is checking the want ads right now because Thorn didn't believe Scott was going to get the Nets any further than he already had. Clearly Kidd believed this as well. Was Thorn's decision based entirely on Kidd's feeling on the matter. It's highly unlikely. Was he influenced by it? Sure, just as every other GM in the league would've been. Most teams would be happy with multiple Finals appearances, even without the ultimate victory. Thorn and Kidd don't think that way. Both are playing for a championship. They've done second place and were ready for something else.

    The question no one seems to be asking right now as we collectively point fingers Kidd's way is ... what is that something else?

    Lawrence Frank? Please. I don't care if he is the second coming of Jeff Van Gundy. Frank, I'm fairly confident, can't go out and stop Tim Duncan or Shaquille O'Neal in a seven-game series.

    Jim O'Brien? I like the sound of that. The Nets are talented offensively and have the tools defensively to turn into an all-around team. O'Brien would be a perfect fit in New Jersey. But again, even with O'Brien's experience and coaching savvy, I don't think it's enough to get the Nets past any of the top five teams in the West.

    Thorn and Kidd don't believe that either. They know that without a healthy Mourning patrolling the middle, the West is too strong. They know that the Mavs, Lakers, T-Wolves, Spurs and Kings are going to stay that way for the next several years. They also know that there's little the Nets can do about it in the short run.


    The Nets would be better off in the long run if Kidd (left) and Tony Parker (right) switched uniforms.
    The Nets are way over the cap. The team is about to be sold, which is a good thing, but the Nets are still a few years away from being relocated to Brooklyn. Their franchise player, Kidd, will be 31 in March. Their second-best player, Kenyon Martin, is heading into free agency and, right now, it looks like the Nets can't afford to re-sign him if he gets a big offer somewhere else. Their best big man, Mourning, is retiring, but his contract won't come off the books for two more seasons. Their second-best big man is playing for the Knicks and won't come off the books until the summer of 2005. Richard Jefferson and Jason Collins are also eyeing free agency in 2005. Their best young prospect, Eddie Griffin, just went back into rehab. The team has no bench and very little cap flexibility to use its mid-level exception to get more help there.

    If that doesn't sound like a rosy picture of the top team in the Atlantic, it's because the Nets have some serious problems. Not problems like the Bulls or Hawks have problems, but real problems when you figure out that their goal is to win a championship, and they no longer have the flexibility to make the moves necessary to get that done.

    Isn't just a matter of time before the wolves turn on Kidd? Like it or not, the heat is now on him to prove that dumping Scott was the right move for the Nets to make. If they continue to struggle, or if they lose a player like Martin in free agency this summer, their window will abruptly close and Kidd will have to take the fall.

    This gets me back to the story first reported on Insider a little over a month ago. It's time for Thorn and Kidd to sit down and agree to amicable breakup. Kidd, and the nice collection of young players Thorn put together in New Jersey, got the Nets further up the mountain than any other team in the East the past two seasons. They aren't reaching the summit as long as Kidd wears a Nets uniform.

    That's not a dig on Kidd who, in my mind, is still the best point guard in the NBA. Kidd's presence absolutely turned around one of the worst franchises in the league. The Nets' two runs at the Finals were amazing. Nor is it a dig on Thorn, who put together a team he felt could win it all.

    The challenge now is for Thorn to recognize that, if he chooses to rebuild right now, the Nets can remain more than respectable and reload for the next 10 years. If he waits another year or two before coming to the decision, Kidd's chance at a championship and the Nets' ability to rebuild quickly will be destroyed.

    There's precedent here. Donnie Walsh started blowing up his Pacers the summer after they competed in the NBA Finals when he decided to trade away Antonio Davis for the draft rights to 18-year-old Jonathan Bender. The next year he shipped Dale Davis out of town for an underachieving kid in Portland named Jermaine O'Neal. The fans freaked out, but Walsh knew what he was doing.

    "I just felt we had come as far as we were going to go," Walsh told Insider. "I knew we could compete for the Eastern Conference championship a few more years, but at what price? I didn't want to be engaged in a 10 year rebuilding process just to keep winning the East. The goal of any franchise is to win it all. I knew if I started when we started, we'd have a chance to rebuild without ever getting really bad. I think that's important. You can't underestimate keeping a winning culture in place on a team."

    The Pacers are now fully reloaded and sport the best record in the East. This time, however, they are stacked with young players at almost every position. Their window, barring a tragic injury or two, should be open for the next six to seven years.

    How does Thorn do it? By trading Kidd to the Spurs. Kidd wants to play there. He believes that if he's paired up with the Tim Duncan, the Spurs have as good a shot as any team to win it all. The Spurs want him there and have the assets to make a trade that makes sense for Thorn.

    What makes sense for both teams? If the Nets sent Kidd and Brandon Armstrong to San Antonio for Tony Parker, Ron Mercer and Robert Horry, both sides could come out of this big winners.

    The Spurs, with the addition of Kidd, would be instant favorites (yes, even over the Lakers) to win the NBA title for the next few seasons.

    The Nets, with the addition of Parker, secure a young, dynamic point guard who just happens to be 10 years younger than Kidd. In New Jersey's offensive scheme, Parker would have the chance to be an all-star. Mercer and Horry both come off the books this summer, clearing enough room for the Nets to re-sign Martin and stay under the luxury tax.

    In the summer of 2005, Kerry Kittles and Mutombo come off the books, which will free up enough room for the Nets to pay Parker, Jefferson and Collins without getting back into luxury-tax land. When you figure into the equation that center Nenad Kristic (one of the best young centers in Europe) and last year's first-round pick, Zoran Planinic, are also on the team, the Nets suddenly have one of the best young teams in the league with a much lower price tag.

    There's no reason to believe that a team this talented couldn't at least secure an eighth seed in the East. Within a two-year window, they could easily be battling the Pacers and Pistons again for the conference title. The difference this time is that the team would be looking at a six-year window to get to the Finals and defeat a team in the West.

    Given the financial realities that face the Nets right now, it may be the only way to get the spending under control and keep a good, young team on the floor.

    Around the League

    # Bulls, Clippers trying to make a deal? The Bulls and Clippers began discussions about a week ago on a way to get big man Melvin Ely to Chicago. At the time, talk of a possible Marcus Fizer-for-Ely swap seemed to be about as far as either team was willing to go. The Clippers are trying to clear more cap room to make a run at Kobe Bryant, and getting Ely's contract ($1.7 million next year) off the books helped.

    Since then, however, talk of a larger Bulls-Clippers swap has taken hold. Bulls GM John Paxson likes Clippers' combo guard Marko Jaric and has tried to get him worked into the deal. The Clippers are balking unless the Bulls throw in their combo guard, Jamal Crawford. That may be too much for Paxson to swallow. Paxson likes Jaric's tough defense and ability to play three positions on the floor, but Crawford is a high price to pay for Jaric. Clippers president Elgin Baylor likes Crawford's ability to run the point and scoring ability in the backcourt.

    Can the two sides make a deal? If the Clippers were willing to substitute local product Quentin Richardson for Jaric, the Bulls would give up Crawford in a heartbeat. However, it's very unlikely that the Clippers would do that, even with the possibility of landing Kobe Bryant to replace Richardson this summer. More realistically, Ely, Jaric and Keyon Dooling for Fizer and Crawford works salary-wise and would address the needs of both clubs.

    # Boozer not going anywhere this summer: I got a flood of e-mails on Wednesday asking why Carlos Boozer wasn't on Insider list of top 2004 free agents. The answer is pretty simple. The Cavs have a team option on Boozer's third season. That means that Cavs fans call breathe a little easier. Cavs GM Jim Paxson had the foresight to lock Boozer up for three years. When he becomes a restricted free agent in 2005, the Cavs will own his Bird Rights and be able to exceed the salary cap to re-sign him.

    Carlos Boozer
    Power Forward
    Cleveland Cavaliers
    Profile


    2003-2004 SEASON STATISTICS
    GM PPG RPG APG FG% FT%
    38 14.0 11.0 2.1 .505 .763

    Had the Cavs only locked Boozer up for two years, they would be faced with the same dilemma that the Warriors faced last summer with Gilbert Arenas and that the Pistons (Mehmet Okur) and the Spurs (Emanuel Ginobili) face this season. A team that has a player under contract for only two years only gets Early Bird Rights, meaning that it can only offer a player its available cap room or, if over the cap, only up to the average player salary (around $4.9 million). If another team offers more, the chance that you lose your free agent is high. It's a lesson that NBA GMs are slowly learning. You see a lot more second-round picks now getting two-years deal with a team option for the third year to protect team from having to deal with an Early Bird free agent.

    # Isiah begging teams to take Shandon Anderson: How desperate is Isiah Thomas to trade Shandon Anderson? According to Newsday, Thomas has tried to pawn him off on the Blazers (for Ruben Patterson, a convicted felon), the Mavericks (for Tariq Abdul-Wahad who basically can't play) and the Raptors (for Lamond Murray).

    Patterson? Abdul-Wahad? Murray? Are there three uglier contracts in the NBA? Apparently, Anderson's is worse as Thomas has been unable to convince any of those teams to take on Shandon. Anderson is due a whopping $23 million over the next three seasons and Thomas wants him out of there, despite that fact that he may be the Knicks' most athletic backcourt defender. Anderson's refusal to go on the injured list this week (he claimed he wasn't hurt) has only caused more grief. According to the New York Daily News, Thomas' inability to trade Anderson has lead to buyout negotiations but so far, no deal.

    # Hawks free to deal? Hawks GM Billy Knight claims that he has the power to make trades now, even though the sale of the Hawks is still pending. "I haven't come across anything that makes enough sense for me," Knight told the Atlanta Journal Constitution. "I'm talking about everything. That's trades, rumors of coaching changes, everything. I'm not going to do anything until I see something that makes sense for us."

    "Everyone thinks we should do something," Knight said. "I don't care about everything else that goes on in the league. When I think we can do something that makes sense, I will do it."

    That's at odds with what GMs around the league have told Insider. With new ownership and potentially new management set to take over in the next few weeks, several GMs have claimed that Knight's hands are tied until the new guys take over.

  • #2
    Re: Insider 1/29/04

    Just want to highlight this part


    There's precedent here. Donnie Walsh started blowing up his Pacers the summer after they competed in the NBA Finals when he decided to trade away Antonio Davis for the draft rights to 18-year-old Jonathan Bender. The next year he shipped Dale Davis out of town for an underachieving kid in Portland named Jermaine O'Neal. The fans freaked out, but Walsh knew what he was doing.

    "I just felt we had come as far as we were going to go," Walsh told Insider. "I knew we could compete for the Eastern Conference championship a few more years, but at what price? I didn't want to be engaged in a 10 year rebuilding process just to keep winning the East. The goal of any franchise is to win it all. I knew if I started when we started, we'd have a chance to rebuild without ever getting really bad. I think that's important. You can't underestimate keeping a winning culture in place on a team."

    The Pacers are now fully reloaded and sport the best record in the East. This time, however, they are stacked with young players at almost every position. Their window, barring a tragic injury or two, should be open for the next six to seven years.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Insider 1/29/04

      No one outside of Indy seems to know when we went to the Finals.

      If you were to only read that article, you would think we were in the '99 Finals. ed:

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Insider 1/29/04

        Considering we were the better team in 99 I can see how people think that way.

        Comment

        Working...
        X