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

Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

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

  • Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

    Wouldn't that be interesting. I loved that combo in the late 1990's before Marbury went crazy and broke it up.

    Marc Stein
    ESPN.com
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3804977

    Nearly one year since Stephon Marbury last played in a regular-season game, signals are getting stronger that the New York Knicks' outcast will eventually make his comeback with the Boston Celtics.


    That still depends largely on Marbury's ability to negotiate his release from the Knicks after weeks of fruitless and oft-contentious buyout talks, but sources with knowledge of the situation told ESPN.com this week that Boston is Marbury's preferred destination if he manages to become a free agent and that the Celtics are indeed hopeful of signing him.


    Celtics general manager Danny Ainge did not immediately respond to a request for comment on a New Year's Day holiday for the entire league and has generally refused to address the possibility of signing Marbury. Yet it's believed that the Celtics' concerns about their depth, after losing James Posey and P.J. Brown from last season's title team, have swelled noticeably since they followed up the best 29-game start in NBA history at 27-2 by losing three of the next four games on the road.


    With Brown telling the New Orleans Times-Picayune on Wednesday that he is "officially retired" and Dikembe Mutombo having re-signed earlier this week with the Houston Rockets, Marbury easily ranks as the most accomplished low-cost veteran that the Celtics can add to their bench in-season. Boston also knows it would have the option to simply release Marbury without significant salary-cap consequences if he fails to click as a backup or proves unwilling to accept a secondary role.
    It appears that the biggest obstacle to such a move is Marbury actually securing a buyout from the Knicks in a timely fashion as opposed to reservations Boston might have about Marbury's impact on team chemistry.
    Although it has been widely assumed that Celtics forward Kevin Garnett would resist a reunion with the controversial point guard -- after Marbury broke up their Minnesota parternship in less than three seasons together by forcing a trade to New Jersey -- one Celtics source insists that Garnett has voiced no opposition to the idea of signing Marbury for the rest of the season to strengthen Boston's backcourt depth behind starters Rajon Rondo and Ray Allen.


    When asked specifically about the likelihood of Marbury joining the Celtics this season, the source predicted that "it will happen."
    Joining the NBA's reigning champions would certainly back up Marbury's recent claim at halftime of a Knicks-Lakers game in Los Angeles that "the team I'm going to go to, a lot of people will be shocked." The 31-year-old hasn't officially played for New York since Jan. 11 of last season and began this season on the inactive list while awaiting a buyout. Marbury was then barred from contact with the team in late November after a dispute over Knicks coach Mike D'Antoni's offering him the chance to start playing again following the Knicks' two trades on Nov. 21, which left them short of available players.


    The Celtics lack size more than anything off the bench, which should explain their interest in Brown and Mutombo. But Marbury -- when he's right -- is a proven scoring threat who can also handle pressure on the ball, freeing up Eddie House to focus on his preferred role of designated shooter. The Celtics also clearly have the strong team culture -- with Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and coach Doc Rivers -- to take on the various challenges of a Marbury dice roll.


    "All the people who say nobody wants me on their team, [that] I'm all different things -- a cancer -- that's not what's going on," Marbury said at the game in L.A. earlier this month when surrounded by reporters.
    One source close to Marbury cautioned that it would be premature to say that he's narrowed his wish list down to the Celtics, but one Western Conference executive said of the notion that Marbury is Boston-bound: "I've heard the exact same thing."


    The fact remains, though, that Marbury has to extricate himself from the Knicks before he can make any firm future plans. Media outlets in New York have reported in recent days that Knicks president Donnie Walsh is planning to seriously rekindle buyout talks now that the calendar has flipped to 2009, but one theory in circulation holds that the Knicks have dragged out Marbury's release this long in part because they don't want to see him wind up as a contributor in a championship race with a team from the same division.


    The Celtics have also yet to make either of their two scheduled regular-season visits to Madison Square Garden. The first is Sunday and the second is Feb. 6.


    In buyout negotiations to date, Marbury has refused to surrender more than $1 million of his $20.8 million salary and, at last report, was no longer offering to give back that much. The Knicks have reportedly asked Marbury to give up at least $3 million for the right to choose his next team, although they could be moved to lower those demands if a trade materializes that requires New York to open Marbury's roster spot.
    Assuming that Marbury does eventually secure a buyout from the Knicks, it would appear that his options are scarce should the Celtics ultimately decide not to take the gamble.


    Orlando and Phoenix are among the top teams needing guard help which have publicly declared their intent to steer clear of Marbury. Miami is often mentioned as a possible destination, but the luxury-tax implications from signing Marbury and the Heat's status as a rebuilding team make it a questionable fit. It is unclear whether the Los Angeles Lakers -- who recently lost backup point guard Jordan Farmar until mid-February at the earliest because of knee surgery -- would be a Marbury bidder.
    ESPN.com reported in mid-November that Dallas planned to investigate the possibility of signing Marbury if he became available -- with Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and Marbury having built a casual friendship over the years -- but that was before J.J. Barea emerged as a reliable contributor off the Mavs' bench. Club sources, meanwhile, have maintained from the start that the Mavs would likely pass on the tricky prospect of bringing in Marbury to back up Jason Kidd, given what happened after those two were traded for each other in the summer of 2001. Kidd led New Jersey to back-to-back appearances in the NBA Finals in 2002 and 2003; Marbury experienced only moderate success in 2½ seasons with Phoenix before a 2004 trade to the Knicks which has delivered little beyond a steadily deteriorating relationship with his hometown team.


    In a first-person weblog entry for the New York Post on Wednesday, Marbury discussed his ongoing exile from the Knicks.
    "People who know me know I'm in the best shape of my life," Marbury wrote. ". . . Bottom line, I came to camp with the right attitude, in shape and ready to play. I didn't come to be a distraction.



    "I didn't want to be a distraction for the team first and me second. I honestly came to help the team win. Real talk. I was willing to put in the work necessary to earn my starting spot and humble enough to accept coming off of the bench.


    "It was unfortunate that the coach wanted to go in a different direction and didn't want me to be part of the team. I just wish it had been handled correctly from jump. I could understand the fact they didn't want Chris Duhon looking over his shoulder, but if you don't want me just pay me and let me go. I just want to play basketball."


    Marc Stein is the senior NBA writer for ESPN.com. To e-mail him, click here.

  • #2
    Re: Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

    They'll grab anybody!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

      Wouldn't JT be a cheaper backup for Rondo than Starbury? Wouldn't JT also be less of a distraction in he media as well? If there is any truth to this at all, wouldn't JT be a viable alternative if he has kept himself in any kind of shape?

      Would the Celtics risk destroying their chemistry with EITHER of them? While I hope so, I really doubt that it would happen.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

        i read this article this morning and I was shocked that the Celts would do this. I honestly cannot believe they would risk bringing in someone that has NEVER played a team game. I do not even care if he is going to be third string, they are the defending champs and they want to screw it up by bringing in this head case. It seemed as if they just want to add depth. I am sure they could find someone in the development leagues versus bringing in Marbury. At least the development league player would play a team game and play with his heart.
        JOB is a silly man

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

          Please, God, make this happen. I can't stand the Celtics, and adding Marbury would at least give some hope that the Celtics do not win another championship.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

            Originally posted by Wu-Gambino View Post
            Please, God, make this happen. I can't stand the Celtics, and adding Marbury would at least give some hope that the Celtics do not win another championship.
            They may need Tinsley.
            Report: 82% Of Wiseguys Think They're Real Funny

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

              This is absurd. Why would they bring someone in who could mess up the winning atmosphere. Marbury has never been on a contending team for a reason.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

                Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                They'll grab anybody!
                Unfortunately for any team besides the Lakers and Celtics, they don't have to grab anyone.......Players such as Marbury are the ones choosing to go to the Lakers or Celtics cuz it's the quickest route to a Championship.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

                  Originally posted by Wu-Gambino View Post
                  Please, God, make this happen. I can't stand the Celtics, and adding Marbury would at least give some hope that the Celtics do not win another championship.
                  Originally posted by intridcold View Post
                  This is absurd. Why would they bring someone in who could mess up the winning atmosphere. Marbury has never been on a contending team for a reason.
                  If that is the case, I would much rather have Marbury end up in LakerTown rather then BeanTown.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

                    Hold on... Marbury REFUSES to give up even something above ONE million of his TWENTY DOT EIGHT million "salary" that he just gets this season for doing exactly.... nothing....? What a moron.

                    I think the Knicks should hold on to him until he drops his demands on the salary part significantly. The trade deadline hasn't come very close yet and Marbury has the most to win in a trade.

                    For the Celtics I can see why they would do it. More quality depth and offensive punch. You might not like him, I know I don't like him, but he adds tremendous offensive scoring power, ball handling, speed and penetration to any second unit and might work decently on their starting squad aswell if they can keep him from trying to do it all alone and I think Garnett, Pierce, Allen are capable of keeping him in his place as a trio.

                    I don't see them even allowing to poison the atmosphere in the lockerroom and with the (relatively for us) low salary Marbury will get in Boston he could be easily dispended aswell, so he offers them a low-risk and high reward.

                    Regards,

                    Mourning
                    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

                      Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                      Hold on... Marbury REFUSES to give up even something above ONE million of his TWENTY DOT EIGHT million "salary" that he just gets this season
                      Yeah, that's what I noticed as well. Those folks that think Tinsley is going to accept a buyout at 50% are living a pipe dream. Marbury's not willing to give up 5%.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        Yeah, that's what I noticed as well. Those folks that think Tinsley is going to accept a buyout at 50% are living a pipe dream. Marbury's not willing to give up 5%.
                        I agree, and have always thought a 50% buyout not reasonable, Marbury is in a significantly different situation than Tinsley. He need only wait four more months to be free, and it's not like his reputation can become any more damaged. I'm sure he's currently tracking the league min (pro-rated) for vets, and telling the Knicks that he'll discount by that much. In his situation, he's basically keeping himself whole, from a monetary perspective. It is unlikely that he'll ever get big dollars again, so why should he give more away than he's sure he can get back at this point?

                        Tinsley, on the other hand, is staring at three years of inactivity. I still think the right buyout amount is in the 80-85% range (NPV), but he may have a little more motivation to make a deal than Marbury has.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

                          Theres not going to be a buyout. Marbury wants 100% of his salary. Which GM would pay a player 100% of their salary in a buyout? Its just stupid. I dont blame Walsh. If theyre going to make a deal if has to be fair for both sides
                          "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

                            Because he might want to get that "free-ride" on one of the absolute legit title contenders?

                            He's a moron if he isn't willing to basically buy his way to that chance. He gets a decent chance to become a "champion" and only has to give up $2.5mln (I severely doubt the Knicks wouldn't take that) of his what is it now? $140mln in total contract earnings since he started his career (leaving his other associated commercial activities out of it)? It's dumb, unless you are a total money whore, which wouldn't surprise me the least either.

                            Regards,

                            Mourning

                            Originally posted by count55 View Post
                            I agree, and have always thought a 50% buyout not reasonable, Marbury is in a significantly different situation than Tinsley. He need only wait four more months to be free, and it's not like his reputation can become any more damaged. I'm sure he's currently tracking the league min (pro-rated) for vets, and telling the Knicks that he'll discount by that much. In his situation, he's basically keeping himself whole, from a monetary perspective. It is unlikely that he'll ever get big dollars again, so why should he give more away than he's sure he can get back at this point?
                            2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Marbury and Garnett to reunite in Boston?

                              Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                              Wouldn't JT be a cheaper backup for Rondo than Starbury?
                              No, because JT won't be bought out.
                              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                              -Lance Stephenson

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X