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

Nets getting closer to getting Shareef Abdur-Rahim

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

  • Nets getting closer to getting Shareef Abdur-Rahim

    Nets getting closer to Abdur-Rahim

    Saturday, July 24, 2004
    BY BRAD PARKS

    Star-Ledger Staff
    The Nets and Trailblazers appear to be moving ever closer to a deal that will bring Shareef Abdur-Rahim to the Nets.
    And if Abdur-Rahim's agent, Aaron Goodwin, has his way, it'll be done before the weekend is through.

    "I'm pushing as hard as I can," Goodwin said. "Shareef is pushing as hard as he can. I just got off the phone with him and he's hoping it's going to be sooner rather than later."
    The hold up at this point seems to be on the Blazers' end. General manager John Nash is pushing for a better deal from the Nets - he has already rejected the package of Kerry Kittles and Aaron Williams, and seems to want one of the better draft picks the Nets got off of Denver in the Kenyon Martin trade.
    "It's just a matter of getting Portland to do the deal," Goodwin said. "We're trying. It's not for lack of effort on everyone's part. There have been a lot of conversations and they're ongoing, it just hasn't resulted in a trade yet. I'm confident they're headed in the right direction."
    Nets general manager Ed Stefanski is in Salt Lake City and a team executive indicated he's got CEO Rod Thorn's blessing to strike a deal with Nash, a longtime friend of Stefanski's.

    There is certainly impetus for both sides: The Nets desperately need a power forward after Martin's departure; and Abdur-Rahim, frustrated over a lack of playing time in Portland after getting traded there from Atlanta in the middle of last season, has informed Nash he won't report to camp for the Blazers in the fall. "I'm surprised (the trade) hasn't happen yet," Goodwin said. "I'm hoping it will happen over the weekend."

    NOTE: The Nets officially announced the hiring of assistant coach John Kuester, who had already worked with the summer league team in Orlando. Kusters, a North Carolina graduate, had been part of Larry Brown's staff but switched to the Nets to be closer to his family in Philadelphia. The Nets still have one more assistant coaching position, and will probably hire former Bull Bill Cartwright.

    http://www.nj.com/nets/ledger/index....5418319180.xml
    [edit=12=1090709352][/edit]

  • #2
    Re: Nets getting closer to getting Shareef Abdur-Rahim

    More information pertaining to this:

    http://www.pacersdigest.com/cgi-bin/...id=76738;fid=1

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Nets getting closer to getting Shareef Abdur-Rahim

      Trade appears dead


      http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...p-185532c.html


      Nets' hopes for Shareef take hit


      The Nets will have to look elsewhere for a new power forward now that the possibility of a Shareef Abdur-Rahim trade appears all but dead.

      Three league sources said yesterday the Portland Trail Blazers are on the verge of signing restricted free agent guard Trenton Hassell. Unless Minnesota matches what is believed to be a six-year, $27 million deal, the Blazers will have filled their need at guard. The Nets were hoping to deal Kerry Kittles, Aaron Williams and perhaps a No.1 pick for Abdur-Rahim. "I think it's dead," one person with knowledge of the Nets-Blazers talks said.Another source close to the situation said the Blazers were never close to making a deal with the Nets. Portland GM John Nash wasn't enamored with what the Nets were offering despite needing a guard and backup center. Abdur-Rahim wants to be traded and the Nets were hoping to replace the recently departed Kenyon Martin with the former All-Star forward.







      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Nets getting closer to getting Shareef Abdur-Rahim

        Good for us, bad for SAR.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Nets getting closer to getting Shareef Abdur-Rahim

          Now he's REALLY getting frustrated. I wonder if Nash will do the same thing with him as he did with Wallace last season. Wait until February, then trade him to an eastern contender.

          http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/or...9624125660.xml

          Blazer demands a trade
          Shareef Abdur-Rahim wants a meeting with team officials and threatens not to play
          Tuesday, July 27, 2004
          JASON QUICK

          Trail Blazers forward Shareef Abdur-Rahim, despondent over the Blazers' rejection of a trade that could have sent him to the New Jersey Nets, told The Oregonian on Monday that he wants a meeting with Blazers management to emphasize that he will not report to training camp unless he is traded.


          "I hope it doesn't come to (a holdout), but if it does, it does," Abdur-Rahim said. "I don't want that to happen; it's not me and I don't think it's indicative of who I am. But at the same time, when I left Portland after the season, I was put under the impression of one thing (being traded), and now it has changed."

          Agent Aaron Goodwin said Abdur-Rahim might go straight to the top of the Blazers' hierarchy -- owner Paul Allen -- because Goodwin's sources are telling him that the Blazers are saying Allen was the one who vetoed a recent trade proposal to New Jersey.

          "Paul needs to understand that Shareef is not coming back there," Goodwin said. "It's getting to the point where it's ridiculous. I guess they don't see it as a problem, and I guess at some point they think that Shareef is going to say, 'Forget it, I'll play (small forward) for them.' But that is not the case. Portland, for whatever reason, is holding Shareef hostage and it's unfortunate."

          Abdur-Rahim said he left a postseason meeting with general manager John Nash and coach Maurice Cheeks with the impression that he would be traded. Now, however, he said Nash and Cheeks are telling him that he will be the team's starting small forward, while backing up Zach Randolph at power forward.

          Abdur-Rahim said this new strategy puzzles him because he doesn't play small forward and everyone on the team knows that Darius Miles is best suited for that position.

          "My problem with that is if you started Darius at small forward all of last year -- and Darius is supposed to be a big part of the Blazers' future -- and now I'm going to start there?" Abdur-Rahim said. "That's creating a crazy situation. What is Darius supposed to think about that? And for the team? That's not good. I don't want to be in a situation where it's uncomfortable.

          "And last season, I didn't even split time at the four, and now all of a sudden you want to start me at the three and have me back up at the four? I just want to know what is really going on. Are they trying to keep me to save luxury tax dollars the next season, or what? I just want to sit down and get some straight talk."

          The crux of the dispute is that Abdur-Rahim, 27, thinks he is still in his prime and should play extensive minutes at his natural, power forward position. Blazers officials indicate he is not better than Randolph, a blossoming power forward who won the NBA's Most Improved Player Award, and thus should be his backup.

          The Blazers' solution is to play Abdur-Rahim for about 24 minutes a game at small forward, and 12 minutes at power forward when Randolph rests. Abdur-Rahim's solution is that he should be traded to a team where he can start at power forward.

          That could have become reality last week, but Goodwin said the Blazers turned down a proposed trade from New Jersey that would have sent shooting guard Kerry Kittles, shooting guard Lucious Harris, power forward Aaron Williams and a first-round pick to Portland for Abdur-Rahim.

          "They just tossed it aside," Goodwin said of the Blazers. "It wasn't like it was a team that didn't have a good deal on the table; this was an excellent deal on the table and it could have solved a problem."

          Nash would not comment on whether the Nets proposed that trade, and he said he is not concerned with Abdur-Rahim's threat to hold out of training camp in October if he is not traded, saying that he will be fined accordingly, with the amount increasing each day.

          Abdur-Rahim, who is set to make $14.6 million next season, said he is prepared to absorb as many fines as it takes.

          "It's not a good situation," Goodwin said. "For them to try and mold him into a (small forward) when he is proven to be one of the more dominant (power forwards) in the league is wrong.

          "So he has two options: to continue to allow his spiral in Portland; or he takes a stance to get out of Portland. Right now, he is choosing to take a stance."

          Cheeks on Monday said he has spoken recently with Abdur-Rahim, a conversation in which he told Abdur-Rahim that if he is indeed on the Blazers' roster next season, the majority of his playing time would be at small forward.

          "For us, we certainly can't move Zach out of his position, so we have to find a place for Shareef, and that is (small forward)," Cheeks said. "When I told him that, he said he doesn't want to play a three; that was his reaction."

          Nash said he thinks Abdur-Rahim, who averaged 22.8 minutes in 32 games with the Blazers last season, can play 30 minutes a game next season with Portland.

          "What we would envision is Shareef playing in a three-forward rotation, with Zach, Darius and Shareef getting the lion's share of minutes. I would see him playing significantly more than he played for us last year. He is a terrific player, and if he is on our roster, he should be on the floor."

          Nash said he hasn't ruled out trading Abdur-Rahim, but at the moment, no team has made a desirable offer.

          "I continue to talk to every team in the league," Nash said. "But I know what is available and what is not. Perhaps what is not available now may later become available. We couldn't have made the (Rasheed Wallace trade) last summer, last fall, or even last December. It didn't become available until February. We have made teams aware of what we would do, and in many cases, we have been rejected."

          Abdur-Rahim, however, said he can't handle another season of swallowing his pride and watching from the bench. He said his career averages (20.1 points, 8.2 rebounds) are too stellar, and his age (27) young enough to be a pawn in the Blazers' money-saving scheme.

          "Don't put me back in the same position as last season. I did it for half the season last year because it wasn't the time to discuss it," Abdur-Rahim said. "I'm not trying to be a distraction, but you can't tell me I'm going to start at the three when you have another kid here who has proven himself.

          "The only point I'm trying to make is, don't take the (professional) way I handle things as a weakness that can be taken advantage of. I've said this to John and I've said it to Maurice: Find a different situation for me.

          "And if I have to sit out and do whatever I have to do, then I will do it. I don't want to, but I will."

          Jason Quick: 503-221-4372; jasonquick@news.oregonian.com

          Comment

          Working...
          X