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

Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

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

  • #16
    Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

    Originally posted by Tyrion View Post
    I'm sure that the teams with any interest in Tinsley have seen him work out in Atlanta
    Was it southern-flavored Nachos or Cheetos he was working on down there?
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

      Surely the title to this thread should be: "Did the Pacers ruin their chances of trading Tinsley?".

      Even the answer to that question is No. If teams think the Pacers are desperate AND that Tinsley has value, they have to figure that someone will step up and take a reasonable bargain pretty soon. If they don't think he has much value, even if they *know* the Pacers are desperate they are not going to seek to acquire Tinman. In that case, the man has no trade value with that particular team anyway...and the Pacers didn't lower it by indicating they were desperate.

      Also, stating that you will not buy out a player who has 3 years left on his contract is both believable and a pretty good idea when it's 21 million dollars. The fact it is believable reduces the "desperateness factor". Yes, some will say Tinsley could have another incident, but for all practical purposes, he is not a Pacer....and until this team starts competing and getting into the playoffs, another incident in the news is not going to impact perceptions that are already in the toilet. If anything, a Tinsley incident will actually highlight the fact he is banned from playing. He can act like a poster boy for the new team. Maybe we need some ads with him on one side of a fence and the rest of the team on the other. To be sure, that will be the message the Pacers emphasize.

      Is it worth 21M to take the risk with the hope that we work a deal at some point to save a big chunk of it. Sure it is. It's not my money, but 21 million is more than the Simons want to throw out the window.

      Just think of it this way. The Simons have lived through the brawl - one of the worst incidents in professional sports. They've lived through Ron Artest breaking cameras, making bad music and demanding a trade on national television. They've lived through Stephen Jackson with his guns-a-blazing, his mouth-a-running and his chain-a-hanging. They've lived with Shawne shacking up with a murderer, being involved in multiple incidents and skipping a court date. They've lived through half a dozen players who were probably high all the time. ....so what's the big deal with putting up with quiet, lil' ol' Jamaal Tinsley for awhile longer to save 21 million dollars?

      The truth is, time changes things like perceptions and circumstances. It's worth it to the Pacers to hang onto Jamaal's contract for at least another year.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

        Tell me if I'm wrong, but there's no urgency in buying Tinsley out, correct? Unless, I'm guessing, the player's union started to make a fuss out of us telling Tins to stay home.

        So we just sit tight until the right trade emerges.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

          The question has been well answered already. But I'd like to question one of the premises.

          Who says the Pacers are desperate to trade Tinsley? What has anyone said to indicate desperation?

          It is clear that TPTB were determined to break with the past and put a fresh new roster together. And they were determined to get costs under control as soon as possible. But trading Tinsley has always been less important to them than those objectives.

          They have accomplished those goals to a laudable extent. If they could have traded Tinsley for a worse contracts, they wouldn't have done it. Sure they regret paying him. But they aren't willing to derail the main objectives in order to get rid of him.

          In short, it is wrong to characterize them as desperate.


          EDIT: McKey Fan just posted a further reason why they aren't desperate.^^

          EDIT: I did so write that at Acapulco Joe's during lunch! And I posted it from home!
          Last edited by Putnam; 10-27-2008, 07:40 PM.
          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)

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            Tell me if I'm wrong, but there's no urgency in buying Tinsley out, correct? Unless, I'm guessing, the player's union started to make a fuss out of us telling Tins to stay home.

            So we just sit tight until the right trade emerges.
            Yes, we sit tight.

            The thing no one seems to realize is that Jamaal has little to no influence on this team. He is a follower. He is not the type of strong loud mouthed personality, like a Stephen Jackson, who can impact attitudes.

            Also, the Conrad incident probably scared him straight to a certain extent. He is now well aware that even thugs in a midwestern hick town like Indy pack heat....and that he'd better stop talking smack or his mouth might get shot off. Yes, I suspect the Conrad incident made an impact.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
              Tell me if I'm wrong, but there's no urgency in buying Tinsley out, correct? Unless, I'm guessing, the player's union started to make a fuss out of us telling Tins to stay home.

              So we just sit tight until the right trade emerges.

              It is good in theory although Tinsley is like an anchor that is holding the Pacer ship from
              full steam ahead. He is the last bad apple to be moved out of the barrel and does have
              a slight effect on peoples perception of the Pacers. But, given the situation they are handling it as best they can.
              {o,o}
              |)__)
              -"-"-

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                There's no urgency to deal with Tinsley if we don't mind having a 14 player roster. In fact his value will surely rise from negative to less negative as the season progresses and injuries occur.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                  Picking up Ford and Jack didnt help out. Though it wouldnt be public, teams will know that Pacers arent in the need of Tinsley's services because of 2 new PGs coming in
                  "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                    Originally posted by Tyrion View Post
                    There's no urgency to deal with Tinsley if we don't mind having a 14 player roster. In fact his value will surely rise from negative to less negative as the season progresses and injuries occur.
                    Exactly, most of this talk about Tinsley having no value isn't going to hold up as the season moves on. There is going to be a point in time where a team is not going to have a choice but take Tinsley on. Just be patient. I think the best thing for all of us is to just leave this thing alone and act as if JT doesn't exist, because in reality as far as the P's are concerned he doesn't.
                    "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                      I applaude our FO for holding true to what they said and have not bought him out. They are truly looking for the best deal available. If they are patient enough, some team is going to be in serious need of a pg and will bite on tinsley.
                      Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                        How can we blame JO for this?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                          Originally posted by Putnam View Post

                          EDIT: McKey Fan just posted a further reason why they aren't desperate.^^

                          EDIT: I did so write that at Acapulco Joe's during lunch! And I posted it from home!

                          I agree that the Pacers aren't desperate to get rid of Tinsley. I feel some teams misjudged Bird on this issue, and I praise Bird for sticking to his plan of not buying out Tinsley. Wow, did I just say that about Bird!

                          Acapulco Joe's... haven't been there in years to eat. The one down by Greenwood went out of business. I don't know if their food wasn't as good as downtown's, poor location, or what.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                            Supposedly Bird said there is a deal on the table for Denver to accept or reject. He mentioned talking further with Denver's FO this week. I think Bird is as anxious as all of us to move forward without Tinsley. Bird HAS TO stick to his guns. He knows that teams have genuine interest in Tinsley, but are just trying to take advantage of the situation. TPTB decided what they would accept for Tinsley and have the time to wait. We have already set our roster for the year, there is no rush to get rid of him at this point. Not until the deadline approaches.
                            "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                              Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                              How can we blame JO for this?
                              How can we not blame JO for this?

                              Edit: Ah, this makes me want to break out in song!

                              When Artest is rappin'
                              and the cops are zappin'

                              I blame JO

                              When David is tokin'
                              and the cameras are brokin'

                              I blame JO

                              When SJax is shootin'
                              and Shawne's friends are lootin'

                              I blame JO

                              When Jamaal is clubbin'
                              and Britton Johnson is subbin'

                              I blame JO

                              OH, woh, woh,
                              I blame JO!
                              Last edited by BlueNGold; 10-28-2008, 08:25 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?




                                Nice effort, BnG
                                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)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X