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?

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    He's not. That's why Toronto wants to move him.
    Toronto wants to move him, cause they Want Calderon as the starter
    R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

    Comment


    • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

      Originally posted by Oneal07 View Post
      Toronto wants to move him, cause they Want Calderon as the starter
      Because Ford's not the guy he was a few years ago in the season opener.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

        T.J. Ford's style of play doesn't fit that well into Sam Mitchell's system. He was brought in when Colangelo came to town because of his ability to push the ball, but Mitchell has slowed the team down a bit. If Carlisle was still the Pacers coach, there would be little reason to bring in Ford...but, Ford, I do believe, would be a great fit in the system the Pacers are currently running because of his ability to push the ball up the floor. I do recall that game against Milwaukee a few years ago when he single handedly beat our entire team up the floor every time. I do believe that if he had permission to do that, outside of Mitchell's system, you would see him doing that. I'm all for bringing him to town.
        Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

        Comment


        • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          Because Ford's not the guy he was a few years ago in the season opener.
          LOL. ok
          R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

          Comment


          • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

            If we can get another 1st round pick out of this deal, then go for it.

            I really think TJ Ford could be a decent, not great starter. Not sure how long that back of his could hold up though.

            This will put Murph at starting PF which I am more comfortable with, and Nesterovic could potentally be a decent backup to Foster.

            Now if this trade goes down, our potential draft picks/hopes totally change.

            Comment


            • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

              If the rumor is correct and the Pacers can acquire TJ Ford , Nesterovic , #17 and filler for JO , I still draft DJ Augustin at pick 11 if he is there. At pick 17 you draft Marresse Speights or Javale McGee.

              With Ford and Augustin , you do as the Raptors did with Ford and Calderon and keep the pressure on defense with 2 point guards who can play uptempto sharing the playing time each night based on who is playing well .

              The Pacers could then buy out Jamaal Tinsley , let whoever wants him pay him the league minimum. Its apparent O'Brien and Bird are not wanting him around.

              Nesterovic's 8 mil expiring , Daniels 7.3 team option, Foster 5.5, not resigning Harrison 2.6mil qualifying offer , nor Diogu 3.9 qualifying offer for 2009/10 eases the salary cap space even eating Tinsley's deal for 2009/10 and 2010/11.

              To me though the key is pick 17 must be part of the trade .
              Last edited by diamonddave00; 06-23-2008, 12:53 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                Hibbert and Chalmers
                Ajinca and Chalmers
                Speights and Chalmers
                Hibbert and Rush
                Ajinca and Rush
                Speights and Rush

                and at 41 take Hill or Dorsey or Burrell.

                I would not be surprised at 2 bigs with Burrell at 41. Green as a non drafted invitee to camp.
                {o,o}
                |)__)
                -"-"-

                Comment


                • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                  The perfect point guard is an illusion..

                  Here is what we get with TJ, a super fast- blow by anyone player who is one of the best finishers in the league. What you dont get is a PG is can post up on O, or D up in the post vs bigger PGs.
                  Jamaal would totally abuse him in the post in practices, then you would have TJ blow by Jamaal every time on the other side.
                  But, TJ is so fast he is a very good perimeter defender, it is just when he is matched up by stronger PGs who try to post him up that he will need help.
                  Last edited by PaceBalls; 06-23-2008, 12:56 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                    I like how it's hit ESPN's front. Only because the word arrest isn't prominent.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                      If they make this deal, does this mean we are drafting Speights/Randolph?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        Because Ford's not the guy he was a few years ago in the season opener.
                        True...if he were that guy, we probably couldn't touch him.

                        We have a beggar's choice with JO, but I like the risk here. If we can get Ford and the #17, then reduce our payroll this year and next by using Rasho and Baston as filler, then I think we should jump on it.

                        Plus, let's say Ford suffers that injury that we fear. His total contract over the next three years is only $1.8 million more than we owe JO in the 2009-2010 season. (The one downside is that it does extend $8.3mm into 2010-2011.) (The total contract commitment, assuming we get Baston and #17, would end up a couple million less than what we owe JO, assuming a 4-yr, $7mm deal for the pick.)

                        However, if Ford can play 70+ games at 13 & 7 (as he did the two seasons prior to this past one), then we get an upgrade at the point, and more flexibility in the draft (being able to go big, and two get two chances in the first round.)

                        Comment


                        • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                          Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
                          Makes sense. They'd have to worry about J.O.'s knee, and we'd have to worry about Ford's back. I think it's a good deal. But man, if J.O. plays at least 70 games next to Chris Bosh...
                          I agree across the board. This is what fair deals look like, risk on both sides where neither feels like it's "obvious". Even if JO does play a lot it still doesn't impact the Pacers much. They seem stuck and ready to move forward in a new way and this is a step in that direction.

                          My point in any deal for JO, or Dun, Tins, etc would be that these are the deals that setup the NEXT deal(s). This isn't a one year fix, this is a legit reworking that's already been in place 2 years. The Golden St trade was big and moved 2 major pieces, one of which was part of the PR issues. So the rebuild starts there and it involved the team taking some real lumps in the W-L department as well as taking on some salary they didn't want.

                          This trade wouldn't make the team better, but it could put a solid pick at 17 on the roster and give you a peek at a possible PG solution/help. This is what you do in order to get the roster really cleaned out and turned over.


                          And I love JO as a Pacer btw. I just accept the nature of the situation.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                            Originally posted by GenlHooker View Post
                            Could we have Christmas in June. To get rid of JO I would do almost anything
                            Naw,

                            Christmas would be if Tinsley were included too.

                            This would just be an early 4th of July celebration. I know I'd launch a bottle rocket or too, even though Rasho is near-worthless and TJ is an injury concern.

                            JO and David H for TJ, Rasho, #17, and Anthony Parker or Kris Humphries works for me.

                            Real GM lists TJ as a full base-year-comp guy, so I couldn't get any trades to work ...
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              I agree across the board. This is what fair deals look like, risk on both sides where neither feels like it's "obvious". Even if JO does play a lot it still doesn't impact the Pacers much. They seem stuck and ready to move forward in a new way and this is a step in that direction.

                              My point in any deal for JO, or Dun, Tins, etc would be that these are the deals that setup the NEXT deal(s). This isn't a one year fix, this is a legit reworking that's already been in place 2 years. The Golden St trade was big and moved 2 major pieces, one of which was part of the PR issues. So the rebuild starts there and it involved the team taking some real lumps in the W-L department as well as taking on some salary they didn't want.

                              This trade wouldn't make the team better, but it could put a solid pick at 17 on the roster and give you a peek at a possible PG solution/help. This is what you do in order to get the roster really cleaned out and turned over.


                              And I love JO as a Pacer btw. I just accept the nature of the situation.
                              I think it could make the team better, but I'm guessing it all depends on what you expect out of JO.

                              If you think that JO can be healthy again and productive, then, no it doesn't. If JO would play 70+ games and provide, say, 18/8/3, then he'd be a boon to the team.

                              If, however, you doubt JO can ever be counted on for that type of games/production (as I do), then you start comparing the team that you would have to the team that played for most of last year. Essentially, adding Ford and Nesterovic to the mix, I think you're a better team.

                              However, I agree with the overall sentiment of your post. This is a nice, balanced risk trade, assuming we get the #17. The type of deal that I would love to work out for both teams: TJ and JO getting 70+ games and helping their teams out.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                                foster, daniels, rasho all expiring, right?

                                swing a trade with NY to send Tinsley away and get the expiring Starbury?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X