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

Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

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

  • Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...plate=printart


    Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

    Pacers would get guard Adkins, center Hunter in the purported trade

    By Mike Wells
    mike.wells@indystar.com

    Embattled point guard Jamaal Tinsley remained an Indiana Pacer on Friday, but there is a "strong possibility" he could be traded to the Denver Nuggets as early as Monday, a person familiar with the situation said.

    A second person confirmed trade discussions were ongoing and said the Pacers will look for another partner if it falls through.

    Both teams denied a report Friday morning that the deal already was done, pending Tinsley passing a physical. Nuggets coach George Karl told Denver reporters he laughed at the possibility.

    "I don't think there's anything to it," Karl said.

    "It's erroneous," Nuggets vice president of basketball operations Mark Warkentien told ESPN.com. "Did Dewey beat Truman?"

    Pacers president Larry Bird issued a statement through a team spokesman saying they're "not going to comment on trade rumors" involving their players.

    The proposed deal would send point guard Chucky Atkins and center Steven Hunter to the Pacers. Both would have backup roles with the Pacers.

    Atkins will make $3.2 million this season and $3.5 million next season, with $760,000 of it guaranteed. He is expected to be out until at least next month following right knee surgery last month. The 7-foot Hunter will make $3.9 million this season and $3.7 million next season. Tinsley will make $21.5 million over the next three seasons. The trade would benefit both teams. The Nuggets need a point guard, and the Pacers would save money, get two players with shorter contracts and, more important, end their relationship with Tinsley.

    The trade, however, also would give the Pacers 17 players under contract, two more than the NBA allows. They would have to release or trade two players by the Oct. 27 deadline. They would have to release or trade another if Austin Croshere makes the team.

    Tinsley's past three seasons have been marked by injuries limiting his availability and several off-court issues that negatively impacted the franchise. Coach Jim O'Brien lost confidence in Tinsley after last season, and the Pacers told him to stay away from the team while they pursued a trade.

    "Unfortunately for Jamaal, some things happened off the court that basically led to this situation," said center Jeff Foster, who has been Tinsley's teammate since 2001. "I think it's best for both parties to go their separate ways, and I think he probably feels the same way. He's probably anxious for something to happen and start new somewhere."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-04-2008, 08:35 AM.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  • #2
    Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

    until I get confirmation by Bird I will not accept this as reality.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

      What???? - So Vecsey was right.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

        Here is what I don't get. Denver lets Hunter practice, everyone in Denver denies this, they apologize to the Denver players for the hubbub. I mean what is the reality.

        It seems that maybe there is a sticking point. In the interim you could make the argument that this is a distraction to the Pacers, when one of the main things to avoid is a distraction.

        I'm really at a loss here.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

          There could be a third team?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

            Well, this is being discussed in the other thread, but the source appears to be Tinsley. He may have jumped the gun on the deal, and Vecsey has a tendency to run his mouth early.

            Something is definitely cooking, but may not be completed. I'm struggling to find them, but there were some pretty specific denials from Toronto during the JO discussions.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

              Well Vecsey did say in his original report that the deal was contingent
              upon Tins passing a physical examination.

              Perhaps Tins hasn't made it to Denver yet for Nuggets team doctors to
              conduct this examination?

              Until the deal is signed and closed, of course the teams involved would
              want to remain "mum" and secretive about it...even if it includes denial.

              Anything can happen between now and the ink drying if a deal really is
              in the works, so nobody (except reporters) will admit involvement until it is
              officially a done deal just in case something does transpire to derail things.

              It would certainly be interesting to find out who leaked this to Vecsey in
              the first place.

              Am keeping fingers crossed that this is legitimate.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/n...y_deal_wo.html

                Yes, character issues have to come into play. But what could be the ultimate reason the Nuggets apparently won't acquire banished Indiana point guard Jamaal Tinsley for guard Chucky Atkins and center Steven Hunter?

                Money, of course.

                The Nuggets last summer gave away center Marcus Camby and his $10 million salary-cap number to the Clippers for next to nothing to avoid luxury-tax hell. Do they really want to risk eventually putting themselves back to where they were?

                The New York Post reported Friday the Nuggets would acquire Tinsley pending the point guard passing a physical. The story was refuted by Nuggets coach George Karl and Hunter's agent, Mark Bartelstein, although a source did tell the Indianapolis Star there remains a "possibility'' of the deal going down.
                If the Nuggets were to make the trade, they would risk again having serious luxury-tax problems, especially in 2010-11, when Tinsley is making $7.5 million in the final year of his contract and the deals for Hunter and Atkins will have expired. Tinsley is due to make $6.75 million this season and $7.2 million next season.

                If the Nuggets were to make the deal, this season pretty much would be a wash since Hunter makes $3.86 million and Atkins $3.24 million (a combined $7.1 million).

                Next season, if the Nuggets plan to keep Atkins, it also would be a wash in such a deal were made. Hunter is due $3.7 million and Atkins $3.48 million (a combined $7.18) million. However, Atkins only has $760,000 of his contract guaranteed so the Nuggets would take on an extra $2.74 million if they're planning to let Atkins go and acquired Tinsley.

                However, where the Nuggets really could be hurt financially by a Tinsley deal would be 2010-11, when the contracts for Hunter and Atkins will have come off the books.

                Consider who's already under contract that season for the Nuggets:


                --Carmelo Anthony, $17.15 million.
                --Kenyon Martin $16.55 million.
                --Nene $11.36 million.
                --J.R. Smith, about $6 million.


                That's four players making about $51 million. Also consider the Nuggets may have forward Linas Kleiza, who is more likely than not to have a new Denver contract start in 2009-10, making a salary in the neighborhood of Smith's.

                If Tinsley's $7.5 million were thrown in that season, the Nuggets could be staring at six players making an amount not all that far from $65 million. And it should be noted none of this considers the possibility, albeit a remote one, that guard Allen Iverson would be on the payroll in 2010-11 at the age of 35.

                The Nuggets gave away Camby to regain some financially stability. Do they really want to risk potentially returning to their former state in 2010-11?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                  Someone needs to tell that guy to shut up.
                  Last edited by Pacers; 10-04-2008, 12:29 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                    Originally posted by Pacers View Post
                    Someone needs to tell that guy to shut up.
                    Quick, where's the duct tape? He is making too much sense.
                    ...Still "flying casual"
                    @roaminggnome74

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                      i dont like this trade...its like getting nothing...
                      its gonna be very good 4 denver...tho...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                        Originally posted by !Pacers-Fan! View Post
                        i dont like this trade...its like getting nothing...
                        its gonna be very good 4 denver...tho...
                        Well, getting "nothing" is the best thing you are going to get for Tinsley considering his contract and injury history. That is not even mentioning any "perceived" baggage or lack of character issues.

                        Also, if getting out from under Tinsley's contract a year earlier and saving nearly $10 million dollars is nothing....I'd imagine the Simons are not going to agree with your assesment.
                        ...Still "flying casual"
                        @roaminggnome74

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post

                          Remember, no matter how much you like Tinsley, he is NEVER going to be a Pacer.
                          And he was never going to garner anything postive for this years team in return, getting nothing back is a huge victory.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                            I was looking at Denver's roster, they will have some interesting personalities, if they add Tinsley, I'll have to keep an eye on it. I don't know if they'll be any good, but I bet they know how to throw a party.

                            Allen Iverson
                            Ruben Patterson
                            Kenyon Martin
                            Carmelo Anthony
                            JR Smith
                            Chris Andersen-2 year drug suspension, crazy amount of Tatoos guy

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                              Originally posted by !Pacers-Fan! View Post
                              i dont like this trade...its like getting nothing...
                              its gonna be very good 4 denver...tho...
                              I don't have any idea how you can equate washing our hands of Jamaal Tinsley to getting nothing.
                              "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X