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

Jermaine O'Neal heading to Toronto for T.J. Ford, #17 pick. Pacers get Baston, give up pick #41

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

  • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

    Yeah Rondo wouldn't get 16 assists if he didn't have Pierce Allen and KG to pass to.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMltKsoDwe8&NR=1
    press pause on the second slow-mo replay around 0:12 mark

    Comment


    • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post

      2 ) Much like how the Raptors COULD be using this to put pressure on the Suns to make a deal with them....assuming that there is some validity to the JO to Cavs rumors....does anyone else think that this could be a way for TPTB to put pressure on the Cavs to accept a deal involving JO for Varajeo/Z/19 ( instead of the rumored Varajeo/Wally/19 pick )?
      I would much much rather have wally's huge expiring contract than big Z. The guy is very old, a poor fit for our system, and his contract is two more years, as opposed to wally's one.

      Varejo/wally/19 is the better deal.
      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

      - ilive4sports

      Comment


      • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

        Originally posted by eldubious View Post
        If the Pacers were to do the Toronto deal, I'm almost certain it would be Arthur at 11 and the best available guard at 17 whether it's Chalmers, Rush, or Augustin.
        I hope that you are right, I am a huge KU fan as well as a huge Pacers fan. If we were to get one Jayhawk I would be in heaven.....let alone two.

        Comment


        • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

          Originally posted by bambam View Post
          Can you really grade Williams yet? Come on, he would of what been a senior? Give him a lil time. I guess that means Steve Nash would of been a bust after his first few seasons.

          96-97 3pts, 2ast
          97-98 9pts, 3ast

          Did you see him becoming the league MVP?
          No, but I actually saw him play worth a damn in college.
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

            count me in for this trade.
            draft Speights and Rush respectively OR do anything in our power to finagle a high enough draft pick to get Bayless (speculatively the #4 pick...highly unlikely)
            Reggie Miller is a God. Period.

            Passion. Pride. Pacers.

            It's ALWAYS Miller Time.
            #31 & Only

            Comment


            • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

              Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
              Agreed......so why trade him now ?

              If you just want to dump him for an expiring deal........trade him for Marbury......who is probbaly a better player than TJ Ford......certainly has more upside...........and who comes off the books next year and keeps you from having to take Rasho.

              The Knicks would likely swap picks with you in that deal as well.

              I didn't say that I wouldn't trade him..........just not for TJ Ford unless you are convinced Ford's neck is not a problem.
              Why does Walsh want JO? Why does he want JO's 44 mil salary vs Starbury's 22 mil salary? At least with Starbury, you don't have to worry about him constantly being injured and not playing. It's not like Walsh isn't all too familiar with JO's problems.

              Why would Walsh take on an extra 22 mil in salary and swap the 6th pick for the Pacers 11th pick? But if he has a hankering to do it, Bird had best jump on that deal, and smile all the way to the draft podium. Not to mention putting a smile on the Simons' faces by saving them 22 mil.

              Comment


              • I agree with Kravitz

                LB - please do this deal. If anything else, it gives us fans a new ray of hope with 4 fresh faces. And to be honest, I have always liked TJ Ford (unfortunate injuries aside) and also Rasho for that matter. This would then give the Pacers a chance to trade Foster for maybe yet another first rounder (hes getting old and his back isnt going to hold up too much longer IMO).

                With the 11th pick we can still take DJ Augustin and we can have a Texas 2 step PG tandem. Groom Augustin with the big man we take at 17.

                We still keep our small nucleus together in DG, Shawne, and DunDun.

                And the hugest thing here, we can now send Tinsley down White River on a raft.

                I apologize if someone else has already echoed these sentiments. I didnt read all 10 pages.

                Comment


                • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                  Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
                  Ford isn't much of an upgrade over Tinsley.

                  You aren't really saving any money since Ford and Rasho almost make as much between them as JO.
                  Has Ford been a PR nightmare for Toronto? Was he when he was at Milwaukee? If not, he's a definate up grade over Tinsley. I know you are referring to Ford's playing, but you have to take in consideration Ford's intangibles too. Right now today, who wouldn't take Ford over Tinsley?

                  As far as your 2nd statement goes, since when is 8 mil not much of a savings? Not only do you put 8 mil back in the Simons pocket, but Rasho's expiring gives Bird 8 mil more for FA's.

                  Oh btw, Brad Miller was never a 2nd round pick. He was never drafted coming out of Purdue.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                    Has Ford been a PR nightmare for Toronto? Was he when he was at Milwaukee? If not, he's a definate up grade over Tinsley. I know you are referring to Ford's playing, but you have to take in consideration Ford's intangibles too. Right now today, who wouldn't take Ford over Tinsley?

                    As far as your 2nd statement goes, since when is 8 mil not much of a savings? Not only do you put 8 mil back in the Simons pocket, but Rasho's expiring gives Bird 8 mil more for FA's.

                    Oh btw, Brad Miller was never a 2nd round pick. He was never drafted coming out of Purdue.
                    He also wasn't on the 60-win team, but the following came to mind when I read it:

                    (the exchange from about the 10 second mark to the 16 second mark)

                    Comment


                    • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                      Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
                      It just so happens that NBA TV is sshowing the 96 draft right now.......

                      7. clips- Lo Wright
                      8. Nets- Kerry Kittles
                      9. Dal- Samaki walker
                      10. Ind- Erick dampier
                      11. GS- Todd Fuller
                      12- Clev- Vitaly Potopenko


                      13- LAL thru Char- kobe Bryant
                      14- Sac- predrag stojakovic
                      15- Phx- Steve Nash

                      And Hubie and pitino are in shock that Sac took Peja instead of John Wallace.

                      Find the superstar player in the draft and you win........fill a need with a guy who projects to be average at best and you LOOOSSSSEEEE.

                      I agree 100%. Let me add, something else though. Of your list of six - 7 through 12, only one of them is a non-big guy. Most mistakes are made when a team takes a big guy, the old addage that you can't teach height has ruined more franchises and costs more GM's their job than anything else.

                      On the trade that is being rumored. Mike Wells certainly didn't back off of the deal this morning, at least not yet. But if talks have broken off, I won't be heartbroken at all.
                      Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-24-2008, 09:41 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                        Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
                        My point is to scout for the best potential player long term and not draft to fill a need with a marginal player.

                        I'll almost guarantee that there will be three or four all star players drafted after #10.

                        In fact on our 60 win team....we had

                        Jo picked in the 20's
                        Artest picked at about 15
                        Brad Miller picked in round 2
                        Reggie picked at 11
                        tinsley picked at 27

                        Can Larry pick one of the All Stars ??

                        He's done well with Granger and Williams......so there is a bit of hope.
                        Once again, I agree 100%/. I just hope Bird is taking the same approach.

                        Comment


                        • Re: I agree with Kravitz

                          Originally posted by BoomBaby33 View Post
                          LB - please do this deal. If anything else, it gives us fans a new ray of hope with 4 fresh faces. And to be honest, I have always liked TJ Ford (unfortunate injuries aside) and also Rasho for that matter. This would then give the Pacers a chance to trade Foster for maybe yet another first rounder (hes getting old and his back isnt going to hold up too much longer IMO).

                          With the 11th pick we can still take DJ Augustin and we can have a Texas 2 step PG tandem. Groom Augustin with the big man we take at 17.

                          We still keep our small nucleus together in DG, Shawne, and DunDun.

                          And the hugest thing here, we can now send Tinsley down White River on a raft.

                          I apologize if someone else has already echoed these sentiments. I didnt read all 10 pages.

                          Well put BB33. I like this trade too.

                          I'm not so sure though that I would agree with taking Augustin at 11 if we
                          were to bring in Ford. He may not be there anyway.

                          But I do like Nesterovic as well. He has a competitive spirit and at least
                          tries to play with some intensity - he is not at all lackadaisical from what
                          I've seen. Would make a nice reserve center for us, and good guy to have
                          in practice.
                          Last edited by RamBo_Lamar; 06-24-2008, 09:43 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                            http://my.nba.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5700016796

                            O'Neal-Ford trade rumor losing steam
                            Jun 24, 2008
                            It's early but it looks like it's over.

                            The brief firestorm of online reportage that erupted after Indianapolis Star beat writer Mike Wells broke the story yesterday of trade discussions between the Pacers and Raptors built around an exchange of Jermaine O'Neal and T.J. Ford has abated with last night's report from Yahoo! Sports columnist Adrian Wojnarowski the talks had broken off because of health concerns on both sides.

                            We may find out more during Larry Bird's pre-draft press briefing today at 11 a.m, but the team president has had no comment about the reports to this point and the presence of a room full of media isn't likely to change his policy. Just so you know, today's session has been scheduled since last week, so don't read anything into the timing.

                            Admittedly, it was a sexy deal, at least superficially, for both teams. Ford would bring much-needed speed and playmaking to the up-tempo Pacers. O'Neal would provide a strong defensive complement to Chris Bosh with the Raptors. Had the 17th pick been thrown in (along with Rasho Nesterovic and possibly one other Toronto player to make the cap numbers work) , the Pacers would've held two first-round picks and at least one expiring contract.

                            But both teams have reason to be concerned about the physical viability of the deal. Ford missed all of the 2004-05 season with a spinal cord injury and 31 games last year, most of which were due to a neck injury from a hard fall. O'Neal has missed 107 games due to a variety of injuries in the last four seasons, including 40 with knee problems in 2007-08.

                            Both players may ultimately be reolcated. O'Neal has been the subject of widespread trade speculation, occasionally self-induced, the past two years. The Raptors reportedly are shopping Ford in order to commit to Jose Calderon as the starting point guard.

                            This rumor, at least for now, doesn't appear to be the answer. But stay tuned. Heading into the NBA Draft, you never know.

                            Jun 24, 2008 8:59 AM EDT
                            "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                            -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                            Comment


                            • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                              I think this deal was doomed when we heard of its existence. Too bad, it seemed like a nice deal for both sides, with an equal amount of risk and reward for both. Potentially, it could have worked out REALLY well for both, REALLY bad for both or REALLY well for one but not the other.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                                Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
                                You aren't really saving any money since Ford and Rasho almost make as much between them as JO.
                                Okay, here we go again.

                                Ford and Rasho combined make about $16.5M THIS YEAR.
                                This coming year is the last on Rasho's contract. The Pacers would be saving big bucks the following year, after his contract has expired. They would only be paying Ford's contract of about $8.5M (plus whatever fillers were still around) instead of O'Neal's $23M (or whatever close figure it is).

                                See the difference?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X