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

7-5 Nets Blueprint

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

  • 7-5 Nets Blueprint

    Monday, July 5, 2004

    Will the Nets be torn apart?

    By Chad Ford
    ESPN Insider


    It didn't take long for new Nets owner Bruce Ratner to get a rep in the league and the New York media. The GMs around the league refer to him as a business owner -- a guy who cares more about the bottom line than the win column. The media? Well, the New York Daily News dubbed him the "rat" after word began spreading like wildfire that Ratner was ready to gut the Nets to save a buck or two.

    Over the past week, Ratner has been making his case, individually, to anyone who will listen that he plans to keep the Nets intact. He's not trading Jason Kidd despite numerous reports from league GMs that Kidd is on the block. He's not letting Kenyon Martin slip away in free agency amidst assertions from his own team president, Rod Thorn, that Martin is asking for more money than the team believes he's worth.

    While many in the league and a few inside the Nets believe that Ratner is more interested in his development project -- the one that will relocate the Nets from New Jersey to Brooklyn -- than the team itself, Ratner firmly denies that the team is in any jeopardy of breaking up.

    "I'm not somebody that's in a cost-cutting nature," Ratner told the Daily News under a headline that said 'Bruce: I'm no rat.' "I believe you have to spend money. In the case of real estate, people look and say, 'Look how beautiful this place is.' That's the same thing in the case of basketball."

    "The cost-cutting is totally exaggerated," he told the New York Times. "Look, every team makes decisions as to what are the best players for this particular group to work together, play together, and how do you do that in a cost-effective way? Sometimes that means trading someone much more needed by another team, you know, and saving some money so we can keep other players."

    After two Finals appearances in three years, are the Nets as we know them through? Or will the new ownership bring them back for one more encore? Here's a look at what to expect as Insider continues its summer blueprint series.

    Nets Summer Blueprint

    DRAFT: Ratner got the cost-cutting rap, in part, because of his decision to sell the No. 22 pick in the draft to the Blazers. After the fact, Nets president Rod Thorn claimed they believed there was no one on the board at No. 22 worth drafting. But internally, sources told Insider that Thorn's statements were after-the-fact spin. The Nets did have someone they loved on the board at 22 -- Sergei Monia -- but had already agreed to trade the pick to Portland.

    FREE AGENCY: This summer everything hinges on Kenyon Martin. Martin is one of the top two or three best free agents on the market and is getting rabid interest from teams like the Nuggets and Hawks, in part, because they believe that the Nets might not match a max deal.

    Will they? The team balked at signing him to a max extension last fall and Thorn has been less than enthusiastic about the prospect of shelling out that kind of cash to keep K-Mart in town.

    "Kenyon has made it very clear through his agent he wants a max deal," Thorn said last week. "It's going to be up to him to see if he can get one. We're just going to see what the market is for him."

    He'll probably get multiple offers. The Nets know it. And unless they are able to trade away another expensive asset, they might not be able to match it. That's why the team offered to swap Martin to Denver for Nene just before the draft. The Nuggets balked, believing they might be able to land Martin and keep Nene. Why give up an asset when you don't have to?

    Since that time, however, the Nets caught a huge break. Rodney Rogers failed to opt in to the last year of his deal, immediately clearing around $3.3 million in cap space this summer to re-sign Martin.

    Combine that with the savings from dumping the first-round pick, and maybe the Nets will be willing to swallow Martin's deal. Then again, Richard Jefferson will be looking for a big extension of his own this summer and former first-round pick Nenad Kristic is ready to come to the U.S. to play this summer. Any short-term savings is about to get buried in more cap stuff.

    Obviously, given the nature of the Nets' financial woes, using their mid-level exception on a free agent is out of the question. That's going to be a major problem for a team that was just way too thin to compete with deeper teams like Detroit and Indiana. At this point, it looks like the team is tightening its belt, not loosening it.

    TRADES: If someone does have to go, it could turn out that Jason Kidd, not K-Mart, is the one in the most danger of changing addresses this summer.

    The Nets love Kidd, but they know, at the age of 32, that his best days are behind him. Kidd just had microfracture surgery on his knee and will likely miss training camp recovering from the surgery. The surgery is a difficult one to recover from and there's a chance that Kidd might never be the same.

    That's a double-edged sword for the Nets. Without Kidd, spending the money on Martin and company is a waste. The Nets just aren't good enough without him to contend. Unless, that is, they can work out a trade for Kidd and get a marquee player in return. The problem is, with Kidd's future in serious doubt, who would trade for him at this point?

    The speculation all year has pointed to San Antonio. The Spurs made a big bid for Kidd last summer and Kidd was very close to accepting it. A year later, the Nets would love to work out a sign-and-trade for Tony Parker. The Spurs don't appear as excited anymore.

    Kerry Kittles is the other guy on the block. The Nets and Blazers had serious discussions about a Kittles-and-Aaron Williams-for-Shareef Abdur-Rahim swap, but little else.

    COACHING: Byron Scott was the fall guy for the Nets' problems last season and his young assistant, Lawrence Frank, seemed to justify the firing of Scott. Frank, during his brief tenure there, energized the team and led it on an frantic run toward the end of the season. The Nets were one game away from knocking the eventual world champion Pistons out of the playoffs.

    Kidd is a big Frank supporter, meaning he'll be in great shape as long as Kidd sticks around. Even if Kidd leaves, Frank seems to have fallen in favor with Thorn and is the type of overachieving head coach GMs love.

    FRONT OFFICE: Rod Thorn has done a great job in New Jersey, but some believe he too may be part of Ratner's cost-cutting schemes. At $2 million per year, Thorn is among the highest-paid GMs in the league.

    More likely, it would be Thorn who would consider leaving if Ratner really is cutting bait. Thorn has spent enormous hours rebuilding the team. He won't stand by forever and watch a land developer rip it to shreds.

    For now at least, the focus is off the team, the coach and the GM. It's squarely on Ratner, who must decide whether he can afford to pay for a good team with no fan support in a lame-duck city. He claims that he'll keep it together. But his accountants, who know, win or lose, that no one will come and watch the Nets, may get the best of him.

    Until they get to Brooklyn, what's the point?
Working...
X