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

Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

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

  • #16
    Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

    So I'm guessing the rumor that we shot down a Felton for Ford swap were pure hogwash?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

      Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
      Chirst...is seems like the only time that anyone wants to trade with Indiana is when one of our players is demanding a trade and/or our backs are against the wall. What's ironic that when next season comes, they'll be beating down Bird's door to get Dunleavy's, Foster's, Murphy's (if he's not traded to a contender this year), and Ford's contracts. If I was Bird, I would give the other GMs the finger, and spend the money in the summer of 2011 myself. Season be d*mned.
      Allah, Buddha, Mohammed, Oprah. . . That's a great idea.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        We wanted to get rid of JO and get salary cap flexibility and this was the best trade out there for JO.

        And some of you were acting like JOB loved Ford about 10 days ago
        Then why did JOB play him so much for so long?

        This is why I ran those polls asking how many believed he was played for his trade value. Do you still believe that has not been a factor at all?
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          We wanted to get rid of JO and get salary cap flexibility and this was the best trade out there for JO.

          And some of you were acting like JOB loved Ford about 10 days ago
          The problem wasn't trading JO for Ford's contract, an expiring contract and a draft pick. The trade was a good trade.

          The problem was holding onto the player associated with Ford's contract and putting him on the court.

          I really wish they could have moved him along before last season began. His contract was a bargaining chip.
          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


          • #20
            Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            Then why did JOB play him so much for so long?

            This is why I ran those polls asking how many believed he was played for his trade value. Do you still believe that has not been a factor at all?
            Trade value - maybe a slight factor. I think JOB knows that Ford is the most talented point guard on the roster, so he wanted to give him more than a fair chance to be the starting and finishing point guard. And to be fair 25 games is a reasonable length of time. No one can argue that he wasn't given a fair chance this season to keep his starting position. JOB put a happy face on it just like he did for 2 and a half months with Tinsley two season ago.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              We all know that the plan over this past summer was to trade Ford and re-sign Jack. But when it became evident that no one really wanted Ford and Jack got a little bigger contract than I think the Pacers expected - they decided to let Jack go and keep Ford for now. I'm sure O'Brien was none-too-happy
              Yes indeed. Who really knows the impact Jack would've had this year? But, I for one was very disheartened they didn't match Toronto. I wanted him to be our starting PG for the next 5 years. I thought he was that good, and would get better. I would really liked to have seen Jack and Dahntay together (I know, not feasible), but those 2 would've been great to see toghether.

              All this talk of how they couldn't afford it etc... I wonder what they think of that now? The team is the laughingstock of the NBA, hardly anyone shows up to the games. Would they have put up the extra 4 mill for Jack in hindsight?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                No one can argue that he wasn't given a fair chance this season to keep his starting position. JOB put a happy face on it just like he did for 2 and a half months with Tinsley two season ago.
                And that's what it has always boiled down to. Ford was only an upgrade over Tinsley because he would allegedly be available for more games. The mindset here (and probably also in the Pacers front office) was "not a good PG, but at least we can count on him to not be very good in 70+ games per season and that's better than a revolving door."

                Keep that in mind. We weren't improving the level of play at that position, we were trying to eliminate the volatility at that position.

                And Ford has done that, right? Right? Anyone? HELLO!?!?
                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


                • #23
                  Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                  Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                  They made the trade because it saved them over 20 million over the final 2 years of JOs contract-this for a guy they were desperate to be rid of.

                  And they did have a plan this year for pg. His name is Earl Watson-like it or not. Given the situation and financial position it was the best they could do. Then they have Diener-a player many on here were clamoring to start last season. And then they added Price-which most like.
                  Well sure, but the Raptors turned around and flipped JO for Shawn Marion, whose contract expired last year.

                  That's the big kicker to me. If the Pacers had managed the situation better, they could have had a deal that put them in an even better position.
                  SportsTwo.com

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                    Kinda hard to have been trying to trade Ford for "years," when you've only had the guy for 18 months.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                      I don't think we'll see Ford in a Pacer game again.

                      Tinsley 2.0.
                      Sounds like what I said in the game thread was correct.
                      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                      -Lance Stephenson

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                        Originally posted by MikeDC View Post
                        Well sure, but the Raptors turned around and flipped JO for Shawn Marion, whose contract expired last year.

                        That's the big kicker to me. If the Pacers had managed the situation better, they could have had a deal that put them in an even better position.
                        the toronto-miami deal was actually jo + moon + pick for marion and banks. contrast that with what we got for jo = tj + rasho (expiring) + pick. so toronto actually spent 2 first round picks in flipping j.o. for marion. considering marion was a half season rental, that's not exactly great value.

                        so obie played tj basically to showcase him. how long before we find that troy is being showcased too? i mean both players are at the absolute bottom in plus-minus, which we know obie values. if sitting tj gives the team "the best chance to win", wouldn't that be true for benching troy as well?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                          Originally posted by Speed View Post
                          Get out from under the other 12 million that JO is being paid right now. I mean when we got TJ, it would be hard to predict he'd be in as bad a place is he is right now.

                          What I don't understand is, if you knew you don't like TJ at all, why not keep Jack, who you did really like?

                          I mean I get the length of contract and not wanting to lose finacial flexibility and the not going over the luxury tax, but still.

                          I mean, they knowingly went into the season, without a starting caliber Point Guard. Maybe this is a tank season.

                          Even if you signed Jack to that same contract as Toronto did, you just know if they got a better point guard down the line, Jack would step aside as the starter and actually help the new guy.

                          It just seems to me, that they really didn't have a plan for the Point Guard position and now that is bearing fruit.

                          Think about it, they knew they didn't like TJ. They knew Deiner was hurt and not the answer at starter, anyway. They knew AJ wasn't a starter, right now, or even a back up, during the summer. They knew Head was a combo guy. They knew Earl Watson was a career back up, who got benched last year on a (not good yet) Okla City team.

                          I know it's easy for me to sit here, after the start they've had and be critical, but going back to July and August, I still don't get the plan for this year.

                          Side Note: the quotes from Obie and Bird saying how they expect a big year from TJ this year, makes more sense now. Shows you that you can't believe hardly anything they say, it was all posturing to increase his trade value. Weak attempt at that, for sure.

                          Side Note-part II- TJ knows they are shopping him hard, remember the weird Tweet around draft day about him potentially being traded?
                          To add to that, why didn't they draft a PG in possibly the strongest PG draft ever? I mean, I didn't do research, but you have Jennings, Flynn, Rubio, Lawson, Maynor, Evans, Mills, Teague, ect.

                          I've said all along, I'm a big Hansbrough fan, but it didn't make sense to draft a PF this year. This year had a strong PG class, next year has a strong PF class. Now we are stuck without a PG and very little hope of getting one, as there won't be a solid option at our pick - where there will be about 5 possible PF's. Now we have Hansbrough and getting a PF doesn't make as much sense.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                            To add to that, why didn't they draft a PG in possibly the strongest PG draft ever? I mean, I didn't do research, but you have Jennings, Flynn, Rubio, Lawson, Maynor, Evans, Mills, Teague, ect.

                            I've said all along, I'm a big Hansbrough fan, but it didn't make sense to draft a PF this year. This year had a strong PG class, next year has a strong PF class. Now we are stuck without a PG and very little hope of getting one, as there won't be a solid option at our pick - where there will be about 5 possible PF's. Now we have Hansbrough and getting a PF doesn't make as much sense.
                            I'm with you on that. I don't understand a single thing our franchise does. I really don't. If you look at any other team in the league, I can tell you where they are going and who they are building around. Our youth is what we're suppose to be building around, and while Roy has done well, so has Brook Lopez in New Jersey, and while Lopez is a good player my point is your progression when you're on a bad team can be somewhat inflated.

                            I think TPTB look at whoever is in the draft, and Larry Bird picks the player that he likes the most. May sound good, but instead of picking a player that fits what the team needs, he picks someone that he likes on a personal level. Personal relationships are what has made Jim O'Brien so entrenched here.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                              I LOL at this part:

                              Originally posted by Chris Sheridan from ESPN
                              Indiana has been trying to trade Ford for "years," an NBA source told ESPN.com on Sunday night as Ford sat out the entire 48 minutes and Indiana was steamrolled 132-89 by the New York Knicks. "Not weeks. Not months. Years," the source said.
                              I know it's not great to laugh at our misfortune....but the way it was said is very funny ....if not telling and depressing
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                                Originally posted by Jim O'Brien from ESPN Article
                                "T.J is struggling in some areas," O'Brien said. "We're not spacing the court with him, he's only made one 3-pointer [in 28 attempts],
                                Note to JO'B from Captain Obvious:

                                Ford has never been a good 3pt shooter....he never was one when he was with the Bucks...the Raptors and certainly not one as a Pacer.

                                This is one thing I do not like about JO'Bs insistance about taking the 3pt shot.....it doesn't matter that Players aren't a good 3pt shooter....he'd much rather the team as a whole ( as evidenced by Inferno, Ford and McRoberts....none of which are remotely good at taking 3pt shots ) take a bad 3pt jumpshot then take any other shot that the Player is good at taking.

                                A friend of mine that follows the Warriors told me about a story with Nellie and Monta. Nellie ( another Coach fond of the 3pt shot ) saw that Monta was struggling with the 3pt shot...which Monta never had any real problem with in High School. Nellie eventually figured out that although Monta had no problem with taking a 3pt shot from the High School level....he didn't have much as much range to take and hit it from the NBA 3pt line on a consistent basis. So, what did Nellie do? instead of forcing Monta to continually take a bad 3pt shot....he simply told Monta to take a 3pt shot ONLY if he had an absolute open look. If he didn't, then Nellie told him to take a step closer to the basket and take the type of shot that he was comfortable hitting. Sure, it was a 2pt attempt...but Nellie would prefer that his Players take shots that they are comfortable and good at taking ( and therefore have a higher chance of hitting ) then take a bad shot in the first place.

                                The moral of the story here? Sometimes it's better to adjust your style of Coaching rather then have a Player do something that they are simply not good at doing. To me, this means that when it comes to players that simply aren't good at ( nor should be ) taking 3pt shots.....tell them not to take any 3pt shots. If we had the caliber of Players that are good enough that can learn and adjust to JO'Bs style of play...then I'd be okay with what JO'B insists that we do on the offensive end. But since we don't.....I feel that there has to be a certain level of flexibility on the Coaching end to adjust to the strengths and weaknesses of our roster. We simply do not have enough talent to go with a "My Way or the Highway" mentality when it comes to Coaching.
                                Last edited by CableKC; 01-04-2010, 12:57 PM.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X