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

The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

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

  • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
    Please, do you really think the FO isnt' talking to the player. Its one thing to have a league wide policy, its another to actually enforce it a week before training camp opens.
    That's kinda funny. It would make no sense for a team to be able to talk to a FA, but not talk to their own players. Ah well.

    Comment


    • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      you assume they are offering Monta Ellis.
      that was reported:

      Marcus Thompson: Source told me Warriors would take CP3 as a rental - if New Orleans takes Monta instead of Curry

      http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


      • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

        He'll be traded whether he signs an extension or not. New Orleans isn't going to just lose him, and there will be a team that thinks they can convince him to stick around.
        "man, PG has been really good."

        Comment


        • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          you assume they are offering Monta Ellis.
          True, but Warriors are not stupid, they know it would be a insult to just add those two and that be it. Another assumption, but either they are adding another player and picks, or just picks with the deal.

          I will also say that it is a assumption that they are not adding Ellis as well, no one knows exactly what is going on besides they do not want to include Curry in the deal.
          Why so SERIOUS

          Comment


          • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

            Originally posted by Really? View Post
            True, if I were NO I would want Curry too, I think that it is all up to Boston, if they come with a deal that involves rondo and some young guys they will most likely be the trade partner. If they don't the Warriors offer would seem to be better than that of the Clips so they would be in the drivers seat if they wanted to keep Curry.
            IMHO....ignoring the Player side of the equation ( as in Rondo Vs. Curry and who is the better Player to add/build around )...I think one of the main reasons why the Hornets do not want a huge long-term contract on the books like Rondo ( despite being a solid Starter ) is because of the Financial obligations it means to the Franchise.

            We know that the NBA is trying to find an Owner for the Hornets. Why would a prospective Owner want to buy a Franchise that has a lot of debt and financial obligations ( like Rondo's $43 mil / 4 year long-term contract )? Isn't clearing as much debt on the books why Teams try to have fire-sales on Players Contracts when they are trying to sell the Team ( or in this case find a prospective Owner )?

            That's why I thought that a Curry+Klay+Ekpe trade offer was the strongest....you get back 1 high quality Starting PG and 2 prospects with rookie contracts while having a minimal amount of debt and financial obligations instead of getting back Rondo's $46 mil guaranteed contract.

            IF the NBA is really looking for an Owner to buy the Team....I'd think that this would be a consideration. It's not a matter of who is the better player...it's a matter of making the Franchise an attractive option to any prospective Owners.

            IMHO...for a Team that is rebuilding.....getting back a package of Curry and 2 prospects while not adding any long-term / huge contracts...makes the most sense. Adding Rondo...unless he's a big Ticket draw like Durant, CP3 or Roy Hibbert ...isn't going to make any real sense IF they are truly rebuilding.

            Originally posted by Really? View Post
            I will say with all the Warriors talk I doubt Paul would sign an extension there if they had to give up the players that are mentioned in the rumors, they just will not have the talent to make a championship run.
            The rumor was that CP3 ( or his agent, don't know who ) would ONLY be interested in coming to the Warriors or Clippers IF they signed Tyson Chandler. Since it appears that the Clips will go with DeAndre Jordan....that would leave the Warriors as the only option that could do that IF they amnesty Biedrins.

            IF they are able to pull together a Chandler signing....a Starting lineup of CP3/Monta/DWright/Lee/Chandler would be fairly solid to build upon. Sure, there is no depth this season....but that will be remedied over the next season as FA clamour to go play with CP3 while filling needs via the MLE.
            Last edited by CableKC; 12-07-2011, 05:25 PM.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
              that was reported:

              Marcus Thompson: Source told me Warriors would take CP3 as a rental - if New Orleans takes Monta instead of Curry

              http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm
              Wow...that would essentially be a Salary dump of Monta onto the Hornets. I can see why the Warriors would do that...but I don't see why the Hornets would. Monta is owed $18 mil beyond this season.

              IF CP3 says that he will sign an extension IF the Warriors could get Chandler, then I'd have no problem with sending Curry and keeping Monta. Having one of the top 3 PGs in the league for the next 4 to 5 seasons is worth it even at the cost of Curry and whatever LT that is incurred while fielding a CP3/Monta/DWright/DLee/Chandler lineup for the next 3 seasons ( at the very least ). But this ( of course ) assumes that the Warriors could overpay to get Chandler in the first place.

              We're talking about getting a true Franchise Player and one of the top 10 Players in the League....it's going to cost you something to get that done.
              Last edited by CableKC; 12-07-2011, 04:53 PM.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                Wow...that would essentially be a Salary dump of Monta onto the Hornets. I can see why the Warriors would do that...but I don't see why the Hornets would. Monta is owed $18 mil beyond this season.
                I'm not a big Monta fan and don't particularly want to see him on the Pacers, but I think the Hornets could do a lot worse for CP3 than getting a guy that can drop 24 points/5 assists a game for $11 mil/year.

                Comment


                • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

                  McGrady Agrees To Deal With Hawks

                  Dec 07, 2011 4:08 PM EST
                  Tracy McGrady has agreed to a one-year deal with the Hawks for the veteran-minimum, according to a source.
                  McGrady played for the Pistons last season, starting in 39 of the 72 games in which he appeared.
                  McGrady will presumably replace the bench scoring provided by Jamal Crawford.

                  Via Stephen A. Smith/ESPN
                  Tracy McGrady, Atlanta Hawks, Detroit Pistons, Chicago Bulls, NBA, NBA Signing Rumor, NBA Misc Rumor
                  Read the Full StoryDiscussSend FeedbackBuy Tickets



                  Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap...#ixzz1ftHZ4bJ7



                  At least one deal has leaked out.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    IMHO....ignoring the Player side of the equation ( as in Rondo Vs. Curry and who is the better Player to add/build around )...I think one of the main reasons why the Hornets do not want a huge long-term contract on the books like Rondo ( despite being a solid Starter ) is because of the Financial obligations it means to the Franchise.

                    We know that the NBA is trying to find an Owner for the Hornets. Why would a prospective Owner want to buy a Franchise that has a lot of debt and financial obligations ( like Rondo's $43 mil / 4 year long-term contract )? Isn't clearing as much debt on the books why Teams try to have fire-sales on Players Contracts when they are trying to sell the Team ( or in this case find a prospective Owner )?

                    That's why I thought that a Curry+Klay+Ekpe trade offer was the strongest....you get back 1 high quality Starting PG and 2 prospects with rookie contracts while having a minimal amount of debt and financial obligations instead of getting back Rondo's $46 mil guaranteed contract.

                    IF the NBA is really looking for an Owner to buy the Team....I'd think that this would be a consideration. It's not a matter of who is the better player...it's a matter of making the Franchise an attractive option to any prospective Owners.

                    IMHO...for a Team that is rebuilding.....getting back a package of Curry and 2 prospects while not adding any long-term / huge contracts...makes the most sense. Adding Rondo...unless he's a big Ticket draw like Durant, CP3 or Roy Hibbert ...isn't going to make any real sense IF they are truly rebuilding.
                    I do believe that the Curry deal is better for NO. I did not take the money aspect into play, but I am not sure it will be that big a issue, I could see if Rondo was a bad contract, as in being overpaid but I do not see it that way. I think that owners would understand that they have a proven star on the team already.

                    The rumor was that CP3 ( or his agent, don't know who ) would ONLY be interested in coming to the Warriors or Clippers IF they signed Tyson Chandler. Since it appears that the Clips will go with DeAndre Jordan....that would leave the Warriors as the only option that could do that IF they amnesty Biedrins.

                    IF they are able to pull together a Chandler signing....a Starting lineup of CP3/Monta/DWright/Lee/Chandler Starting Lineup would be fairly solid. Sure, there is no depth this season....but that will be remedied over the next season as FA clamour to go play with CP3 while filling needs via the MLE.
                    What was actually said is that he would be more likely to sign a extension if the team also signed Chandler, but given that line up that you have I could see them being a 7 seed in the West, just thinking about the starters that is. I also doubt they would have much money to sign anyone, with the contracts of Ellis, Paul, Lee, and Chandler. I think Paul's goal is to win a championship and I just do not see this group as the one to do it, but that is just an opinion which could turn out to be wrong.
                    Why so SERIOUS

                    Comment


                    • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

                      Originally posted by tadscout View Post
                      I even saw one report claiming there was a deal agreed upon between IND-NO-BOS, but Boston pulled out after hearing Paul wouldn't extend to reaccess the situation... but since then it sounds like NO has gotten better offers.


                      There always a team pulling out at the last second with the Pacers.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        ......................

                        It's what they have available to offer as the 3rd team involved not what "they" will offer for Rondo in a 2 team deal.
                        Last edited by Justin Tyme; 12-07-2011, 06:02 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

                          Your Earth-shattering news of the day...

                          WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
                          Jason Kapono intends to sign a one-year contract for the veteran minimum with the Los Angeles Lakers on Friday, league sources tell Y!

                          Comment


                          • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

                            Originally posted by Really? View Post
                            I do believe that the Curry deal is better for NO. I did not take the money aspect into play, but I am not sure it will be that big a issue, I could see if Rondo was a bad contract, as in being overpaid but I do not see it that way. I think that owners would understand that they have a proven star on the team already.
                            Curry may not have played long enough in the NBA compared to Rondo.....but Curry has proved enough to me in his 1st 2 years to show me that he's as good of a "Player" to add to the foundation of a Team as Rondo is.....especially if you are essentially rebuilding from scratch ( where you will need as much Cap room as you can get ).

                            Originally posted by Really? View Post
                            What was actually said is that he would be more likely to sign a extension if the team also signed Chandler, but given that line up that you have I could see them being a 7 seed in the West, just thinking about the starters that is. I also doubt they would have much money to sign anyone, with the contracts of Ellis, Paul, Lee, and Chandler. I think Paul's goal is to win a championship and I just do not see this group as the one to do it, but that is just an opinion which could turn out to be wrong.
                            The Warriors would be in the same boat as the other Super Teams are....not in terms of having Super Star Players...I'm talking financially and therefore what they can do. They will be adding a MLE Player every year, signing cheap but decent Role Players to fill the remaining holes over time. If CP3 went to the Knicks.....they would be doing the same from the view of building the Team.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

                              Chris Mannix: Chuck Daly once demanded in his contract his per diem be $1 more per day than Pat Riley. Twitter
                              http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm

                              Classic, never heard that before
                              Sittin on top of the world!

                              Comment


                              • Re: The official 2011/12 NBA rumors and reports thread

                                Bill Russell did that to Wilt Chamberlain a good 40 years ago.

                                When Wilt signed the NBA's first $100,000 contract, Russell negotiated his next deal to be $100,001.

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X