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

  • Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

    Did coming out publically saying they would not buy him out and he would not return kill a trade? I think it did. There are about three teams that need a PG and are interested in Tinsley, but they are calling the Pacers's bluff. They know the Pacers are desperate to move Tinsley and are going to wait it out because they can't beleive a team would pay a player that they don't want. The Heat want to rob the Pacers by asking for a lst round pick with Tinsley, the Nuggets want cash along with Tinsley, and the Warriors are the most stubborn acting like their is no one on their roster worth Tinsley. All these teams are pulling the Indy's card, because of the Pacers public blunders.

  • #2
    Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

    I think most teams figured the Pacers would buy Tinsley out - so I don't see how coming out and telling everyone that they aren't going to buy him out - I don't see how that could possibly hurt his trade value.

    Whether they actually said he wasn't returning I don't think hurt his trade value - actions speak louder than words, and not allowing him to practice or play in any of the preseason games I think did damage his trade value a little.

    But really I think it was worth it (his trade value was terrible 3 months ago anyway) (negative trade value is what I call it) to keep him away from the team and to let the local fans realize he wasn't coming back under any circumstances.

    The only thing I might disagree with is that the pacers just didn't buy him out - but if they can get a halfway decent trade somehow than it was a great decision. If he sits out the whole year - I really don't care.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-27-2008, 03:44 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

      Originally posted by eldubious View Post
      Did coming out publically saying they would not buy him out and he would not return kill a trade? I think it did. There are about three teams that need a PG and are interested in Tinsley, but they are calling the Pacers's bluff. They know the Pacers are desperate to move Tinsley and are going to wait it out because they can't beleive a team would pay a player that they don't want. The Heat want to rob the Pacers by asking for a lst round pick with Tinsley, the Nuggets want cash along with Tinsley, and the Warriors are the most stubborn acting like their is no one on their roster worth Tinsley. All these teams are pulling the Indy's card, because of the Pacers public blunders.
      This, of course, assumes that the members of the league's front offices have roughly the same amount of information (or lack thereof) as the average fan on the street.

      It was more important to the Pacers that they make it clear to their team and their fanbase that they were moving on from Tinsley. I'm curious as to what you would've had them do. They had traded for two new point guards: TJ Ford and Jarrett Jack. Were they supposed to bring Jamaal into camp and either (a) pretend or (b) actually let him compete for the job? How productive was that going to be?

      The front offices throughout the league know who Jamaal is and have been well aware of the situation in Indy for years now. What action were the Pacers supposed to take that would make the other GM's believe something other than what everybody knew was the truth?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

        Originally posted by count55 View Post
        What action were the Pacers supposed to take that would make the other GM's believe something other than what everybody knew was the truth?
        I believe, in that situation, you recommend lying.




        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

          Originally posted by eldubious View Post
          and the Warriors are the most stubborn acting like their is no one on their roster worth Tinsley. All these teams are pulling the Indy's card, because of the Pacers public blunders.
          The Warriors aren't paying for Tinsley's contract. They aren't in the Tinsley "sweepstakes" and never were. (please pay no attention to that Matt Steinmetz article awhile back, as he was just getting his info from reading message boards).

          The upper management (not Mullin) took exception with giving a 29 year old Baron a pretty reasonable extension because they were worried about his age, injuries, attitude, etc...and this is a guy who is a star player.

          Given that, it's unlikely they'll commit $21M to a player in Tinsley with an even bigger case of those problems and who isn't anywhere near as talented as Baron.
          Last edited by d_c; 10-27-2008, 04:25 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            I believe, in that situation, you recommend lying.




            I second that motion. Here's what should have been said:

            Press: Now that you have Ford and Jack, what are you going to do with Tinsley?

            Bird: We believe we have the best group of PGs in the leauge, we are going to have a honest competition for the starting spot.

            That's when training camp comes around and the team says Tinsley is practicing at an undisclosed location, period. Sometimes, the less said is the best policy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

              Originally posted by eldubious View Post
              I second that motion. Here's what should have been said:

              Press: Now that you have Ford and Jack, what are you going to do with Tinsley?

              Bird: We believe we have the best group of PGs in the leauge, we are going to have a honest competition for the starting spot.

              That's when training camp comes around and the team says Tinsley is practicing at an undisclosed location, period. Sometimes, the less said is the best policy.
              That ship sailed when they put Tinsley on ice last season. Does anyone still believe in light of everything that has now happened that Tinsley was injured the 2nd half of the season?
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                That's the real problem. His probably would have had trade value heading into the deadline last February.

                In my opinion, more mistakes in terms of handling Tinsley were made prior to last summer, by the dysfunctional two-headed monster. I'm not sure I blame Bird for this - he probably had no trade value before Bird's statements.

                It seems to me that Jim O'Brien's statements were probably more damaging than Bird's.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                  Regardless of the statements made or not made, the two most damaging things to Tinsley's value are:

                  40% games missed over the last five years
                  Three Years - $21.6mm (Particularly that third year, given that it violates the mythical 2010 imperative)

                  I don't know what the Miami rumor is, as I've not heard any specifics from them. I don't think Golden State has any interest. Finally, I don't think Denver's being horribly unreasonable in asking for cash if it's really the Atkins/Hunter deal, which saves us a great deal of money in the long run.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                    Originally posted by count55 View Post
                    Regardless of the statements made or not made, the two most damaging things to Tinsley's value are:

                    40% games missed over the last five years
                    Three Years - $21.6mm (Particularly that third year, given that it violates the mythical 2010 imperative)

                    I don't know what the Miami rumor is, as I've not heard any specifics from them. I don't think Golden State has any interest. Finally, I don't think Denver's being horribly unreasonable in asking for cash if it's really the Atkins/Hunter deal, which saves us a great deal of money in the long run.
                    co-signed. acting as if GMs around the league really don't know tinsley's M.O. (and that bird / o'brien saying things publicly could negatively impact his trade value in any significant way) is a little ridiculous.
                    This is the darkest timeline.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                      I think that it could only help him get out of here. Knowing what he is worth makes a major difference in this situation. I really don't think we need to ask for much anymore.

                      A couple of White Castle sandwiches or a box of Eggo Waffles will do.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                        I for one am impressed with Pacers management that they didn't buy Tinsley out or cut him. If they have to pay his contract anyway, having him on the roster as a potential trade piece down the road is far more valuable than having Croshere on the bench. At the very least, he will someday be an expiring contract that can be traded for something of value, and more likely, someone will get desperate for a PG and trade something for him this season.

                        As far as the subject of this thread, I seriously doubt anything said in public matters one way or the other. I'm sure that the teams with any interest in Tinsley have seen him work out in Atlanta or at least talked to him or his agent about his current condition, etc.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                          Off Topic: I don't suppose you got the name Tyrion from a wonderful little book series did you?
                          Report: 82% Of Wiseguys Think They're Real Funny

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                            Indeed, I did. I can't believe how long we are waiting for the next book!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

                              Did Tinsley Ruin the Pacer's Trade Chances?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X