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

Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

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

  • #76
    Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

    Originally posted by eldubious View Post
    That was the most ridiculous trade rumor I've ever seen. How anyboody could defend it makes me question their alliegience to the Pacers. The Pacers would give up their most valuable asset and the 11th pick for Wally, the 19th, and Snow. Bird would have to have the IQ of a rock to make that deal. Any dealings with Cleveland would not include any draft pick from the Pacers and would certainly require Cleveland's 19th, period.
    I didn't see anybody here think that specific deal was a good trade. The closest anybody came to "defending it" was probably me when I said that the one scenario I could see the Pacers making that deal was one where they were desperate to shed salaries in preparation for a sale.

    Even then, I was of the opinion that it was a deal for the Pacers on the court and a bad deal for the fans in regards to the long term future of the Pacers in Indy.

    In any case, it looks like it was completely wrong per Morway, who says there are no talks with Cleveland.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

      Originally posted by tadscout View Post
      Morway: No Truth To O'Neal/Cleveland Rumors

      Indiana general manager David Morway revealed in a phone conversation with RealGM on Thursday afternoon that the team has not discussed a trade with Cleveland involving Jermaine O'Neal.

      When asked about the rumor, Morway simply said "No."
      Rumors were circulating around the internet that the Pacers were thinking about sending O'Neal and the 11th pick to the Cavaliers for the expiring contracts of guards Eric Snow and Wally Szczerbiak.


      "It's tough to answer questions on trades, but in this particular case I will say that the rumor is completely false," Morway added.
      Via Andrew Perna/RealGM
      With what is going on with the Pacers pre-draft workouts being covered, the blog by Morroway, Jim O'Briens homework assignments, and now this lightning quick denial of this hack has me applauding the Pacers seemingly new openess that we haven't seen with the franchise.
      ...Still "flying casual"
      @roaminggnome74

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

        Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
        I will point out again (as I always do with this author) that Givony was fired from one internet rag after he admitted faking quotes and lying about interviews that never happend.

        He has 0 cred IMPO.
        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        Thanks, I didn't bother to check the source (stupid move). This guy is not worth 3+ pages on.
        Originally posted by Shade View Post
        Do you happen to have any links?

        I believe you, but I'm interested in reading what he did and his admission.
        geezer, i don't know if you have another incident in mind, but the big controversy i remember givony being involved in has nothing to do with fake quotes or lying about interviews.

        what happened was that he called agent joel bell a "scumbag" in his article, and joel bell brought a defamation suit against givony and draftcity.com (the previous incarnation of draftexpress)

        i can't find givony's blog post about it any more, but read the court case and judge for yourself.

        http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions...6.RNC.Bell.pdf

        this was the part of the article bell objected to:

        One of the more interesting topics from yesterday was Kelenna Azubuike’s decision to sign an agent and forfeit any NCAA eligibility he has remaining. . . .

        According to those I spoke to, the person to blame for this horrible decision (besides Kelenna who should have obviously known better and at least done a little bit of research) was the agent he decided to hire, Joe Bell. The word "scumbag" came up again and again in conversations around him, and apparently this isn’t the first time that word has been associated with his name. He’s widely known as an extremely sketchy agent who has no problem bribing greedy parents with offers of $50,000 or so in order to convince their kids to flush their career down the toilet.

        Numerous names of players who were made similar offers this year and in the past were brought up. Dwayne Jones from St. Joe’s has apparently been made an offer from Bell as well, and his father is thinking about taking it, despite the fact that he basically has no chance of being a first rounder and many think he might not even be drafted in the second round.
        for the record, azubuike did do undrafted, before eventually being picked up by the warriors.

        certainly, it was extremely indiscrete to print this kind of allegation, even on an obscure website. but that's a far cry from quote fabrication and lying that geezer is saying.

        he did get fired from draftcity.com, but that's because his partner decided to settle with bell and close the site down. givony went on to found draftexpress.

        i don't have any association with draftexpress, other than as an avid reader, but i feel compelled to defend givony. he has brought some great content over the years. his problem is, he prints nearly everything he is told (like the j.o. and #11 to cleveland rumor, which i think is overstated), but isn't that the attraction for us draft fans?
        Last edited by wintermute; 06-06-2008, 12:46 AM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

          Do you know how quickly Mike Brown would kill Danny Ferry if he traded for Tinsley?

          For his own safty Ferry would never to a deal for JT.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

            i'd do crap contracts + the 19th and maybe their 2nd or a future 1st for jo, but giving up our #11 just to rid ourselves of jo is insane.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

              Beyond insane. JO's value to other teams will only increase for the remainder of his contract duration. I say we hold on to him until next summer or the trade deadline following on that in the winter and then try to maximize our leverage. IF they do trade him this summer then just expirings and crap won't do IMO.

              We need atleast the semblance of a building block back.

              With regards to shedding salary to be able to re-sign Danny. I think letting Daniels contract expire should provide some relief, though if it will be enough is very much a questionmark with part of that relief beying "eaten" immediately by the yearly rising salaries from other players contracts.

              Regards,

              Mourning
              2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

              2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

              2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

                No, sorry I do not have that info. And that is interesting Wintermute, I don't remember seeing that. What I have always based my comment on was what I read as a disclaimer on one site saying he had been fired for these offenses and then being struck that he was writing on DraftExpress.

                Perhaps they are one and the same offense and the site I saw the comments on had an agenda vs. Givony.

                Since I cannot produce the link perhaps I should just say...I'm skeptical of anything he says.
                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

                  [quote=Mourning;731348]Beyond insane. JO's value to other teams will only increase for the remainder of his contract duration. I say we hold on to him until next summer or the trade deadline following on that in the winter and then try to maximize our leverage. IF they do trade him this summer then just expirings and crap won't do IMO.

                  We need atleast the semblance of a building block back.



                  Exactly, my friend. From a business standpoint it would be silly, stupid, and tragic to give away JO when his value is at its nadir. Common sense would scream out that you deal him as his value continues to rise. And I hope that TPTB are NOT contemplating giving away the #11 pick to get rid of a contract. Rebuilding involves acquiring draft picks and using them wisely, not giving them away.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

                    Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                    Do you know how quickly Mike Brown would kill Danny Ferry if he traded for Tinsley?

                    For his own safty Ferry would never to a deal for JT.
                    After listening to the anti-Ricks claim that Tinsley only got to play because Rick got booted from a game and Mike Brown immediately gave Tins a shot and he never let go, I'd expect to see that theory proven out by Brown killing TO GET TINSLEY.

                    Now I think that view of Tins in Rick's first year is bunk. Rick had no obligation to keep playing Tinsley in games after that and in fact Kenny Anderson got hurt which required Rick to count on Tins regardless. IMO Tinsley simply had to earn his way back to the court because of whatever issues Rick had with him. I think it's safe to say this continued under JOB too, with maybe even less forgiveness perhaps.



                    Either way it would seem that if CLE felt they needed a point guard I don't think Mike would be fully against it. And if Tinsley has been sitting 80% because of sinipoutis Brown would know that and would know that if he could get along with Tins where Rick/JOB couldn't the Cavs could get a real bargain in dealing for him.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

                      Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                      With what is going on with the Pacers pre-draft workouts being covered, the blog by Morroway, Jim O'Briens homework assignments, and now this lightning quick denial of this hack has me applauding the Pacers seemingly new openess that we haven't seen with the franchise.

                      LOL. . It's a horrible trade plan
                      R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

                        Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                        With what is going on with the Pacers pre-draft workouts being covered, the blog by Morroway, Jim O'Briens homework assignments, and now this lightning quick denial of this hack has me applauding the Pacers seemingly new openess that we haven't seen with the franchise.
                        I want to give a little credit to Andrew as well, who tracked down Morway to get the lightning quick denial.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

                          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                          With what is going on with the Pacers pre-draft workouts being covered, the blog by Morroway, Jim O'Briens homework assignments, and now this lightning quick denial of this hack has me applauding the Pacers seemingly new openess that we haven't seen with the franchise.
                          Here, here! It's a completely new direction for this franchise. I, for one, am well pleased.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

                            Originally posted by count55 View Post
                            Well, it depends on what you think of picks 6 through 20. I happen to think there's not much, if any, difference in those players. If you can get a good player or something else of decent value and still be in a position to get a guy you think is just as good later, then you do it.

                            For example, if, after the workouts, you decide that Lawson and CDR are at the top of your list, you might look to move back a few picks if you think you can get them later.
                            But that's my point. If you really like the guy and he's available at #11 why trade down to get him at #19? Makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. The right thing to do is to move UP not DOWN.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

                              Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                              But that's my point. If you really like the guy and he's available at #11 why trade down to get him at #19? Makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. The right thing to do is to move UP not DOWN.
                              You do it if you think he'll be there at #19 because in trading down you'll get the #19 AND some kind of incentive back.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                You do it if you think he'll be there at #19 because in trading down you'll get the #19 AND some kind of incentive back.
                                That had better be one helluva incentive!

                                Frankly, I really can't imagine a scenario where any team would trade down to get the player they want if he was available at the team's original draft position.. It's like saying, "Oh! We (Portland) have the #1 pick and we know Oden's available right now, but we're gonna trade down w/Atlanta to get their #3 and #11 picks because we have a gentleman's agreement between them and every other team w/picks 1, 2, 4-10 not to take the guys we want. We'll get so-and-so @ #3 and pick Oden at #11."

                                I mean, really...what kind of sense does that make?

                                If anything the Hawks would trade both their picks to Portland to get the #1 pick, not the reverse. If your guy is available @ #11 you get him. Plain and simple. If not, you select the next best talent on your selection board OR if you think all of your best options will be gone by the time your turn comes up you try to trade UP to improve your odds. I just can NOT think of any viable scenario that would make a team think it's in their best interest to trade down.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X