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

Chris Paul to Clippers

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

  • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

    Zach Lowe @ZachLowe_SI

    Thirteen days until the season starts, the Hornets don't even have half an NBA roster. #basketballreasons
    No deal is good enough, because the league screwed up by not letting the first deal go through.

    If the NBA has any interest in maintaining some kind of fairness... HE. CAN'T. BE. TRADED.

    Comment


    • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

      If I'm Dell Demps I just quit right now.

      Comment


      • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Read Dan Gilbert's email to Stern. He didn't even mention 19 million. He probably wasn't even aware of it. His ranting is completely focused on jealousy toward the Lakers.
        Try reading the 3rd sentence of the e-mail. It was the first reason he gave!

        To me, 19 million seems to be approximately 20 million.

        Originally posted by Dan Gilbert
        It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed.

        This trade should go to a vote of the 29 owners of the Hornets.

        Over the next three seasons this deal would save the Lakers approximately $20 million in salaries and approximately $21 million in luxury taxes. That $21 million goes to non-taxpaying teams and to fund revenue sharing.

        I cannot remember ever seeing a trade where a team got by far the best player in the trade and saved over $40 million in the process. And it doesn't appear that they would give up any draft picks, which might allow to later make a trade for Dwight Howard. (They would also get a large trade exception that would help them improve their team and/or eventually trade for Howard.) When the Lakers got Pau Gasol (at the time considered an extremely lopsided trade) they took on tens of millions in additional salary and luxury tax and they gave up a number of prospects (one in Marc Gasol who may become a max-salary player).

        I just don't see how we can allow this trade to happen.

        I know the vast majority of owners feel the same way that I do.

        When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?

        Please advise...

        Dan G.
        Granted, it doesn't mention New Orleans paying more money, but it sure does mention LA paying less, and LA dumping salary obligations meant that NO was picking them up, since the proposed deal was nearly cost-neutral to Houston.
        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-12-2011, 03:22 PM.
        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: Chris Paul to Clippers

          Well, it's looking more like it's on life support. Wojo goes on to say...

          Deal is dead, "for now, anyway," source tells Y!.Could still be restructured again, but Clippers resisting steep asking price for Paul.
          If David Stern is actually negotiating in good faith, he will relent on demanding both Gordon and the pick and this gets done.

          Comment


          • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

            Yeah, if I'm Demps, I quit.

            It could be that the Clippers were the ones that killed the deal, in which case I don't necessarily mind it. Demps could then come back and accept the previous terms.

            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


            • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
              No deal is good enough, because the league screwed up by not letting the first deal go through.

              If the NBA has any interest in maintaining some kind of fairness... HE. CAN'T. BE. TRADED.
              If the league really wants the Hornets to get a top-3 pick, one of the best things it can do is prevent the team from having any training camp together whatsoever.

              Comment


              • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

                dead as in totally dead, or dead as in "mostly dead"??

                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: Chris Paul to Clippers

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  It wasn't until Thursday that a team knew an offer had to be good enough for Stern, hence why they were dealing with the GM of the Hornets.

                  If the league had been honest from the beginning and let people know that Stern had ultimate veto power then this wouldn't have been quite as big an issue. But instead, the league said that they would stay out of the FO decisions. That's why everyone was broadsided by this.

                  Letting other owners influence what goes on in the front office presents so many ridiculous conflicts of interest issues that it's not even funny. You have the issue of spite as was the case here, as well as the fact that some owners (particular WC ones) might want to do a deal that screws the Hornets so it helps their own teams. These owners have no business whatsoever influencing the front office decisions of this team.
                  I agree, but the first deal was flat out ruinous for the Hornets. They were taking in millions in salary to get some highly paid veterans who aren't worth much. Odom was worth a late first rounder (and the team sending the pick gets to pick the draft); how much do you think Kevin Martin or Scola are worth? It was a bizarre deal for a rebuilding franchise to make.

                  Have you ever wondered why Demps agreed to that deal? I'm honestly curious. I find it hard to believe he actually believe that was the best deal he had on the table - from the Hornets perspective.

                  What Stern needs to do is to fire Demps, hire a GM with a modicum of basketball sense and instruct him about the strategy he wants - then stay out of it.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    It wasn't until Thursday that a team knew an offer had to be good enough for Stern, hence why they were dealing with the GM of the Hornets.

                    If the league had been honest from the beginning and let people know that Stern had ultimate veto power then this wouldn't have been quite as big an issue. But instead, the league said that they would stay out of the FO decisions. That's why everyone was broadsided by this.

                    Letting other owners influence what goes on in the front office presents so many ridiculous conflicts of interest issues that it's not even funny. You have the issue of spite as was the case here, as well as the fact that some owners (particular WC ones) might want to do a deal that screws the Hornets so it helps their own teams. These owners have no business whatsoever influencing the front office decisions of this team.
                    I agree it was handled poorly, but you're trying to say that the reason they vetoed it, was because the Lakers were the one's ending up with CP3. If that was the case, then they would have simply killed the trade and moved on to the next one, instead of going back and taking yet another entire day to try and make the trade happen.

                    So it really wasn't about him going to the Lakers, but rather, the fact that it was a horrible deal for NOH, when you look at the entire context of the deal.

                    And yes, it was handled horribly, but the other 28 owners own the Hornets and because they own it, they should get a say.

                    Do you remember how screwy dealing with Atlanta used to be, when they had 7 different owners who all got to voice their opinion? This situation is no different.

                    I just don't think Stern realized that Demps was a complete moron. There's no way you lose the best player in the deal, don't even get a first round pick, and take on an $20mil and that be considered a "good" deal for a franchise that needs a new owner and a complete roster overhaul.

                    I bet Demps lost all the control he thought he had. You can clearly see the difference in how NOH handled the Clippers deal that fell through and the Lakers deal they tried taking. I don't think Demps is the one pulling the strings now.
                    Last edited by Since86; 12-12-2011, 03:10 PM.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Read Dan Gilbert's email to Stern. He didn't even mention 19 million. He probably wasn't even aware of it. His ranting is completely focused on jealousy toward the Lakers and doesn't even mention the Hornets specifically. 19 million has just been a convenient post hoc excuse to justify a move that was inspired 100% by pure jealousy.
                      Gilbert's letter was mailed AFTER the trade was vetoed. It had nothing to do with it.

                      Gilbert is not the one that vetoed the deal. I wish people would recognize that.

                      The 19 million wasn't a factor to the current owners. It was a factor in stern trying to sell the team.

                      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


                      • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

                        Yeah, the idea that the deal was vetoed because of Gilbert or the owners being jealous is bogus.

                        Stern vetoed the deal because it'd destroy the little value the Hornets may have. Burying the team in salaries and mediocrity without any positive assets. Not that I agree with his decision, he should have paid the price for his poor picking of a care-taking GM. The rest are the usual conspiracy theories.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

                          Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                          If the NBA has any interest in maintaining some kind of fairness... HE. CAN'T. BE. TRADED.
                          I think this should've been the decision from the beginning.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

                            Rondo to indiana part IV??

                            Comment


                            • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

                              Demps was never going to be GM for long. Hence in my opinion he was looking to acquire players for this season, without regard to the long-term interests. The Lakers-Rockets-Hornets deal satified his criteria completely. Odom and Scola are older, but produce.

                              Stern had a very different perspective- the need to sell the team, convincing potential owners of contained costs and future potential.

                              The Clips deal would seem to be a lot closer to Stern's objective, and the demand to also include E Gordon seems to fill both short and long-term issues.

                              I think the deal may have a heartbeat again soon, if the E Gordon component is dropped.
                              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: Chris Paul to Clippers

                                Could someone tell me what the "proposed" deal that ultimately fell through?

                                Did it involve Bledsoe or Gordon?

                                Also...I assume the "filler" was all Expiring contracts...and how many 1st round draft picks?

                                Was it something like Bledsoe+Minny's 1st+LAC 1st+Aminu+Expiring?
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X