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

Rumour and innuendo

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

  • Rumour and innuendo

    Sorry guys not sure if this has been mentioned (I believe mayhaps sometime ago) and I might need someone to confirm it, but apparently his Fordness (chad that is) has suggested in the most recent insider that the Pacers have offered Harrington and #29 to the bulls for #3 and the juicy contract of Scottie Pippen.

    While i dont generally place to much stake in what ford has to say it might be an interesting talking point....

    While most on here would prefer a ready made SG there are apparently some ready to contribute prospects this early in the draft (Gordon, Igudala (sp?)) off the top of my head, however gordon would appear to be more of a tweener and Iguodala has no outside shot to speak of hmmmm....

    Maybe part of a larger deal? Interesting to note thouh all this talk of trading up (I believe a rumour did the orunds for awhile concerning washingtons #5) maybe few teams are biting at a Harrington for SG swap

    Or maybe Barry is available for the MLE......
    "I’m your favorite player’s favorite player. And it’s not enough for me for him to know that. I want the world to know that." -- Michael Beasley

  • #2
    Re: Rumour and innuendo

    Yeah kinda a old rumor , I beleive there is a thread around here discussing it .... but I don't see it happening.
    Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rumour and innuendo

      sorry read somewhere that it cropped up again in todays insider
      "I’m your favorite player’s favorite player. And it’s not enough for me for him to know that. I want the world to know that." -- Michael Beasley

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rumour and innuendo

        No Problem , alot of trade threads and some get lost in the shuffle

        I was reading a article today and paxon said this :

        Paxson is interested in all three of the top draft prospects -- Connecticut junior forward Emeka Okafor, Duke freshman forward Luol Deng and Howard -- but said he might trade the Bulls' picks to get the players he feels will help his team the most.

        ''We've had several calls from other teams expressing interest in our picks,'' Paxson said Monday. ''It's all interesting. But the way this thing works is that nobody plays his hand early and offers specifics. People just express that they do have interest in it.


        Right now it's who can play the best hand of poker basically
        Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rumour and innuendo

          I don't believe it. I don't think at this point in our development they would trade a major contributor for a draft pick. We need immediate scoring help if we move Al. There are no Wade type scorers worthy of the #3 pick and we don't need a big man project.
          Walsh did it in '99.... therefore... it is now a possibility that I wouldn't have believed otherwise.

          -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


          • #6
            Re: Rumour and innuendo

            How about this proposal? I think the sheer size of it, and the fact that salaries would have to be thrown in for this to work but here goes.

            Pacers trade: Al Harrington, Fred Jones or Jonathan Bender, 29th pick
            Pacers get: Scottie Pippen, #6 pick, Jason Terry

            Bulls trade: #3 pick, Scottie Pippen, Jerome Williams
            Bulls Get: Al Harrington, #29 pick

            Magic Trade: #1 Pick
            Magic Get: #3 Pick, #16 pick, Jerome Williams

            Hawks trade: #6 Pick, #16 Pick, Jason Terry
            Hawks Get: #1 Pick, Jonathan Bender or Fred Jones

            The Pacers get a Soild player who can play the 1 and 2 spots, plus a high draft pick, and some slight cap space.

            The Bulls get rid of Williams' contract, plus get Al Harrington.

            The Magic, get a solid veteran in Williams and get the 3 and 16 picks.

            The Hawks really want the #1 pick to get Howard, and get him plus either Bender or Fred Jones and really get to start over with a local prep star.
            "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

            ----------------- Reggie Miller

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rumour and innuendo

              Pacers trade: Al Harrington, Fred Jones or Jonathan Bender, 29th pick
              Pacers get: Scottie Pippen, #6 pick, Jason Terry
              The Pacers actually give up quite a bit in that deal for the #6 pick of a weak draft and a hopelessly undersized SG.

              Bulls trade: #3 pick, Scottie Pippen, Jerome Williams
              Bulls Get: Al Harrington, #29 pick
              If I'm Chicago I can't wait to do this deal. They have enough kids on that team already.

              Magic Trade: #1 Pick
              Magic Get: #3 Pick, #16 pick, Jerome Williams
              Sorry, but no way is Orlando going to drop two spots in the draft when there are no sure-fire big men after #2, for JYD and the 16th pick. Thats simply not going to happen.

              Hawks trade: #6 Pick, #16 Pick, Jason Terry
              Hawks Get: #1 Pick, Jonathan Bender or Fred Jones
              Th Hawks would NEVER do this trade. Why? Because its TOO DAMN SMART. The Hawks are idiots and this trade would make them look like bandits. Shoot, just the #1 pick ALONE for that crap is highway robbery.

              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

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rumour and innuendo

                Pacers trade: Al Harrington, Fred Jones or Jonathan Bender, 29th pick
                Pacers get: Scottie Pippen, #6 pick, Jason Terry
                The Pacers actually give up quite a bit in that deal for the #6 pick of a weak draft and a hopelessly undersized SG.

                Bulls trade: #3 pick, Scottie Pippen, Jerome Williams
                Bulls Get: Al Harrington, #29 pick
                If I'm Chicago I can't wait to do this deal. They have enough kids on that team already.

                Magic Trade: #1 Pick
                Magic Get: #3 Pick, #16 pick, Jerome Williams
                Sorry, but no way is Orlando going to drop two spots in the draft when there are no sure-fire big men after #2, for JYD and the 16th pick. Thats simply not going to happen.

                Hawks trade: #6 Pick, #16 Pick, Jason Terry
                Hawks Get: #1 Pick, Jonathan Bender or Fred Jones
                Th Hawks would NEVER do this trade. Why? Because its TOO DAMN SMART. The Hawks are idiots and this trade would make them look like bandits. Shoot, just the #1 pick ALONE for that crap is highway robbery.
                It wan't a perfect deal by any means, but I think saying Terry is "hopeless" is a little much. The Magic could be replaced with the Clippers with the 2 pick going to Atlanta, Terry to the Clippers, and Quintin Richardson in a S&T to Indiana.

                It was mostly just a stab in the dark as I was bored as hell.
                "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                ----------------- Reggie Miller

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rumour and innuendo

                  I don't believe it. I don't think at this point in our development they would trade a major contributor for a draft pick. We need immediate scoring help if we move Al. There are no Wade type scorers worthy of the #3 pick and we don't need a big man project.
                  Walsh did it in '99.... therefore... it is now a possibility that I wouldn't have believed otherwise.

                  -Bball
                  Not. That was an OLD team in 99. They NEEDED to risk trying to develop a new young star.
                  not QUITE the same situation right now, eh??
                  quite agree.

                  the best theory i've heard about acquiring the #3 (or other high pick) is to use it as trade bait for someone like t-mac. that makes some sense at least, since a rebuilding team would value high picks more.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rumour and innuendo

                    I don't believe it. I don't think at this point in our development they would trade a major contributor for a draft pick. We need immediate scoring help if we move Al. There are no Wade type scorers worthy of the #3 pick and we don't need a big man project.
                    Walsh did it in '99.... therefore... it is now a possibility that I wouldn't have believed otherwise.

                    -Bball
                    Not. That was an OLD team in 99. They NEEDED to risk trying to develop a new young star.
                    not QUITE the same situation right now, eh??
                    They didn't 'need' to 'risk' anything at that point IMHO. Of the members who you might consider 'old' that trade did nothing to minimize their importance to the team. As a matter of fact, it put more emphassis on the old players. I'll never see trading away a team strength for a project as a smart move... not when you are inside a championship window. There had to be much smarter moves available besides the fact of who we could've had in that draft. We got burned so bad that I have to wonder if Walsh would do that again.

                    Let's not forget, we had projects even then (Al Harrington for one).

                    I know all the arguments. I've heard them 1000 times and I still don't buy it. Not when the player you get is Bender.

                    Didn't Walsh say last year he was thru babysitting? Hopefully that is a sign he doesn't want anymore projects taking up bench space. ....Or maybe he was just signaling us that Bird would be coming aboard and it would be his problem.

                    Anyway.... I believe it should be a 'near certainty' whatever player we'd trade for will have a role with this team. I don't want to see another team lessened by a Bender II.

                    Trading up for a high pick and then trading it away for a vet sounds intriguing though.

                    -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


                    • #11
                      Re: Rumour and innuendo

                      As to the 99 draft, what would YOU have done? You've got no young stars and the bottom of the barrel in picks. So they rolled the dice on a 7' high school kid with long arms and a 40" vertical jump. Gee what a bunch of idiots.
                      2. Steve Francis Maryland Vancouver
                      3. Baron Davis UCLA Charlotte
                      4. Lamar Odom Rhode Island LA Clippers
                      5. Jonathan Bender Picayune (MS) HS Toronto
                      6. Wally Szczerbiak Miami (OH) Minnesota
                      7. Richard Hamilton Connecticut Washington
                      8. Andre Miller Utah Cleveland
                      9. Shawn Marion Nevada-Las Vegas Phoenix
                      10. Jason Terry Arizona Atlanta
                      11. Trajan Langdon Duke Cleveland
                      12. Aleksander Radojevic Barton County (KS) CC Toronto
                      13. Corey Maggette Duke Seattle
                      14. William Avery Duke Minnesota
                      15. Frederic Weis Limoges (France) New York
                      16. Ron Artest St John's Chicago
                      17. Cal Bowdler Old Dominion Atlanta
                      18. James Posey Xavier Denver
                      19. Quincy Lewis Minnesota Utah
                      20. Dion Glover Georgia Tech Atlanta
                      21. Jeff Foster Southwest Texas State Golden State
                      22. Kenny Thomas New Mexico Houston
                      23. Devean George Augsburg LA Lakers
                      24. Andrei Kirilenko CSKA Moscow (Russia) Utah
                      25. Tim James Miami (FL) Miami
                      26. Vonteego Cummings Pittsburgh Indiana
                      27. Jumaine Jones Georgia Atlanta
                      28. Scott Padgett Kentucky Utah
                      29. Leon Smith King (IL) HS San Antonio

                      ------
                      Would you still pick Bender 5th?

                      -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


                      • #12
                        Re: Rumour and innuendo

                        Man, after the top-four, that is a *lousy* draft.

                        If my math is correct, six first-rounders have already played their way out of the league, and one of them will never be invited to the Knicks training camp.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rumour and innuendo

                          Imagine if we had took Rip?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rumour and innuendo

                            Imagine if we had took Rip?
                            Or Artest....

                            That draft, like all drafts in this age, are all about "pick the raw talent with superstar potential" rather than "pick someone who'll be a solid contributor." Nobody wants to look back and see a name like Kobe Bryant or Pau Gasol one slot below their pick.
                            Official Member of the Anti-Alliteration Association

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rumour and innuendo

                              Man, after the top-four, that is a *lousy* draft.

                              If my math is correct, six first-rounders have already played their way out of the league, and one of them will never be invited to the Knicks training camp.
                              Rip Hamilton
                              Andre Miller
                              Shawn Marion
                              Jason Terry
                              Corey Maggette
                              Ron Artest
                              James Posey
                              Andrei Kirilenko

                              You better being kidding on that being a lousy draft. I'm a big Bender supporter but those are all very solid to almost superstar type players. That draft has secretly been a spectacular draft.
                              "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                              ----------------- Reggie Miller

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X