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

Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

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

  • #16
    Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

    I guess there is no way that I can be convinced as a fan that having Ron Artest on the Pacers could be a positive with the team or the fans. Ron has proven time and time again to me that he has an extreme amount of talent, but he is mentally weak and is the most selfish player I've ever seen play in the NBA.

    Bringing Ron back is something that I believe would destroy what is left of the fan base and is something that would not be tolerated by many that actually buy the tickets.
    ...Still "flying casual"
    @roaminggnome74

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

      I absolutely can't understand why some of you are ok with the #5 deal.

      Artest was the one who started the dumbest and ugliest brawl of the history of the NBA and he caused that a quality franchise turned to become the black sheep of the league. He had one of the best teams around him and all he then wanted was offensive freedom.

      After the brawl, Artest got all the support from you, from me, from the team and from the organization and he responded with a trade demand!

      No way in hell would I want to see him back in a Pacer uniform!

      BTW: I really don't think either Morway or Bird have something like that in mind, this comes straight out of the author's fantasie. It just shocks me to see that some of you would do this..

      Coming back to the various trade possibilities, to be honest, I like none of these trades...nothing would really help this team!

      I agree with everything JimR has said!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

        I honestly like any of them as long as they don't hurt us any more in the cap situation. At this point, you get no worse in the NBA than not making the playoffs, whether it's by 1 game or 15 games. This team isn't going anywhere with Jermaine O'Neal as its leader. The team needs a shake-up, even if it's not the best sounding one. Donnie shook the team up when he acquired Ron, Brad and Mercer with the midseason trade, and that was the shake-up the team needed. This team needs a change.

        I guess the question is, is it better to stay put, knowing you're not going to contend, or make a gamble on a shake-up, hoping it will provide what you might need to contend?
        Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

          Wells is trolling for us lol... But I would like to add my 2cents to the Artest to Indy thing.

          I really loved Ron's game, in fact he was near the top of my list of all time favorite players. He may have slowed down a bit, but the talent he has is undeniable even today.

          However, this guy is completely unreliable. You really never know when he is gonna change his mind about anything. TPTB could have all the assurances in the world from Ron, and he might just decide, come January after a tough practice and Jim Ob gettin on his case, that he would rather just retire from basketball. He would totally do something like that. I think that would be in the back of everyones mind too, especially if we aren't winning alot.
          It is just too risky. And ron is just too much of an unknown variable.

          The rest of those trades seem pretty unrealistic besides the Swilliams one. He has us shipping off our duds for quality players... That isnt how trades work in reality.

          I think MDJr is the guy we need to try to move. Though there might not be as much of a market for him right now as everyone seems to think.
          Last edited by PaceBalls; 06-08-2008, 01:04 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

            A moment of nostalgia hit me thinking about Ron totally pwnin Lebron James his rookie year. Ahh I miss that 03-04 team.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

              Excluding everything non-basketball related, Artest isn't a good team basketball player. He breaks the offensive play by ball-hogging, gets too many poorly-timed fouls and can't be trusted in big games (04 Pistons series).

              At one point, he probably could have beat any player one-on-one. I've always respected his love for the game. He's just always going against his role on a team.

              And besides all that, how could we get him back for everything he did to disrupt the team?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

                Wow. Really, Mr. Wells? These are the kind of trades Larry is probably looking at? How about getting a single quote from TPTB about what they're trying to accomplish this summer? Because this is all crap out of your head. Sam Smith you're not.

                Can we just have Montieth back? Short version is I'm with Mourning and Kegboy, but for the record:

                1. Bad trade for both teams. Rick just got there and likes Kidd; they won't be moving him this summer.
                2. Sure, we'd do this. But Memphis wouldn't even think about it. Maybe we could trade Ike for M.Redd while we're at it.
                3. Quis and Ike for Captian Kirk? I'd hit it. I doubt Chicago would, but it would probably improve both teams. Only problem is that Chicago can probably get more for Hinrich. It's a worthwhile proposal, though.
                4. Gag me. Kenyon would break in half the moment he got to Indy.
                5. That wasn't a flinch, it was an attempt not to reach through the computer screen and throttle Mike Wells.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

                  1. Jermaine O'Neal to Dallas for Jason Kidd: I don't think this is the greatest deal, but we would be getting a quality player in return. I just think it leaves more issues than it solves. We "sort-of" temporarily solve the PG problem by putting a big dent in our post.

                  2. Shawne Williams to Memphis for Kyle Lowry: I'm obviously against this for several reasons. One, I'm not ready to give up on Shawne. He's still low risk, so let's see if he can mature. If he does, it's a huge payoff; way more than we'll get from Lowry. Also, getting a defensive-minded 3rd stringer does not solve any glaring need. Otherwise, we'd keep Andre Owens or re-sign Orien Greene. Lowry is only slightly better than those players.

                  3. Marquis Daniels and Ike Diogu to Chicago for Kirk Hinrich: PLEASE, NO. Hinrich might be the most overrated guard in the league. We wouldn't be losing a lot of needs, but this only slightly improves our PG situation. If this is what we want, it's much more valuable to let Diener develop. Travis showed plenty of improvement last year, and I have no doubt that he can reach Hinrich level, or maybe higher, in the right situation. If we're trading Diogu and Daniels, trade them for someone like Chucky Atkins (not even sure if that works) or someone who could provide a good veteran presence while being able to contribute at both ends.

                  4. O'Neal to Denver for Marcus Camby and Kenyon Martin: This deal makes the most sense to me. We don't lose any defense, may actually gain, all while adding front court depth. I think Kenyon is a guy that needs to be motivated by the right coach. It worked with Byron Scott, who is no-nonsense. Doesn't work with Karl, but more likely to work with O'Brien. When playing well, Martin always outplayed O'Neal. But that's only when he was playing well.

                  5. O'Neal to Sacramento for Ron Artest and Brad Miller: If there was no history, this might be a no-brainer. But because of the history, it is a different type of no-brainer. I would love this deal, and I think people would eventually get over the past with Artest, at least until the next incident. On principle, I can't see us taking back the player who single-handedly started the downturn of this franchise on two separate occasions.



                  As much as I hate O'Neal, I just don't see the value in trading him. He's our best player, and he's off the books in two years. And when he is, we'll want to be good enough to attract free agents with our extra money.

                  The only way I see any of the deals above working is if future 1st picks (plural) are given to us without us losing any. Best case scenario: Trading O'Neal to a team that finishes with worst record in years of draft picks, plus decent players that can contribute and give Indiana a chance to win....not too much to ask for.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

                    the 1st and 3rd I would do in a heartbeat, even the Kidd deal. I think Kidd can still play in the East. He can rebound, dish dimes, and simply run a team.
                    You can still draft a PG for the future, or you could draft a young big and look for a PG down the road.

                    Of course Quis and Ike for Hinrich is a no brainer, but the Bulls would NEVER do that

                    I guess the Shawne for Lowry would be interesting, but I haven't seen enough of Lowry to form an opinion

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

                      I would do the Denver deal I think if we could get their number 1 pick as well.


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

                        how does wells still hold a job?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

                          #3 is a steal for us, but I doubt Chicago does it. Daniels is a short contract and a decent bench player, but Diogu never plays. Hinrich was one of the better PG's prior to last season.

                          Don't like Kidd for JO. Doesn't solve anything.

                          Don't like Williams for Lowry. Williams has a higher upside.

                          I'd consider JO for KMart and Camby depending on the state of KMart's knees.

                          I'd consider JO for Artest and Miller depending on Artest's mindset.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

                            Where on earth did he even come up with some of these trades?

                            The Mavs are not going to deal Jason Kidd after just getting him. No way that would look like they made a mistake in trading for him in the first place. I mean maybe they might be willing to deal Josh Howard or Jason Terry but I think the Mavs are going to keep Kidd and Dirk no matter what the deal is.

                            I have mixed feelings on the second trade although I like it the best out of the five. I really think that Shawne can be a really good player in this league. I just question his off the court decisions. I like Lowry but to be honest I might offer up Ike but not much more. I think Shawne will be a better player than Lowry although Lowry fills a need for us which is defense at the point.

                            Of course we do the trade with Chicago but no way they give away Kirk Hinrich.

                            I doubt Denver would give up Camby for Jermaine. A deal involing Kenyon Martin wouldn't be so bad except his contract runs a little longer than Jermaine's so I would probably pass.

                            Proposing bringing back Ron Artest is insane. No way in hell that ever happens.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

                              Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                              Also, getting a defensive-minded 3rd stringer does not solve any glaring need.


                              How many 3rd-stringers average 25 minutes a game?
                              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Wells: 5 potential Pacer trades - worth discussing

                                Is anybody else pissed off this was in the paper? It's one thing to post junk like this in a blog, but this is just another example how far the journalistic standards of the Star have fallen.

                                I can't wait to start seeing the reports that the Pacers beat reporter is talking about bringing back Artest.

                                :suicideInfinity:
                                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X