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

Larry Bird: "We're going to try and strengthen this team"

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

  • Re: Larry Bird: "We're going to try and strengthen this team"

    I actually was just looking around at rumors and found one from Mid-Jan where it brought out Pierce would be a great fit here.. Which I agreed with. I'd love to have him.

    BUT, the offer seemed to be PG and a 1st. No thanks. People need to realize, you're not getting PG unless you give us a young star back. Dude has All-Star written all over him, no way you trade that away unless you get something great back in return. An aging Pierce is not that, especially adding a 1st for them.

    Comment


    • Re: Larry Bird: "We're going to try and strengthen this team"

      Those are two decent examples but at the same time, major exceptions. Nobody wanted to touch Baron Davis and that huge contract he had/has and Kirk Hinrich's deal wasn't much better at that time. I don't see us taking on salary unless it's an expiring contract but even than our cap space can only get us so much. Our best bet is to get involved in a three team deal if there is a big name being traded and us being a facilitator.

      Comment


      • Re: Larry Bird: "We're going to try and strengthen this team"

        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
        If Boston's for real about blowing it up, I wonder what it would take to get Rondo.
        What every team wants for a star, picks and young guys only. They would want George and honestly I wouldn't want to include him in a deal unless it was for someone better than Rondo. He could help but I think we would be helping Boston more so in the long run.

        Comment


        • Re: Larry Bird: "We're going to try and strengthen this team"

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          See Anthem's post as to ONE of the reasons why a Team may.



          I agree that it may not be possible....but also keep in mind that JONeal's $6.2 mil expiring Contract translate into a hefty LT payment that the Celtics are going to have to pay...especially if he continues to be injured and the Celtics miss the Playoffs OR they end up as the 7th or 8th seed in the Playoffs.
          This I could actually see. Good post.

          Comment


          • Re: Larry Bird: "We're going to try and strengthen this team"

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            If Boston's for real about blowing it up, I wonder what it would take to get Rondo.
            i don't think BOS will blow it up at the trading deadline. jmo, but they will make the playoffs. they will give the old gang a chance in the playoffs to show they can still play with plenty of rest. the only caveat to that would be someone knocking them over with a deal in BOS's favor.

            no chance that bird gives them that kind of deal. right now bird and ainge are both shopping in the discount isle. the time to steal from BOS is this summer.

            Comment


            • Re: Larry Bird: "We're going to try and strengthen this team"

              this makes sense. assuming that danny, paul and roy are the three guys that the pacers want to keep, pretty much everyone else can be used to get an addition to the gang of three. everyone else can be played or traded to build the team around the gang of three as needed.

              again, i don't see BOS doing this right now. i see them making one last run first.

              Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
              My guess is IF we made a run @ him before the deadline, we would not want to move many "core" pieces. If we want options in the off-season, we don't want any long/bad contracts. So, IMO that means we offer as players (of value to BOS): DC, maybe Hans, possibly Hill (if they don't think they can/will re-sign him), but not much more. I could also see Lou swapped for a like but longer contract (but likely to a 3rd team - no good $/player match on BOS).

              This too is where I see our cap space helping us greatly. I could also see us using our cap to absorb a contract (or 2) from other teams in smaller deals to aquire additional picks. We could then in turn add these picks to ours, + DC (+?), cap savings = pretty nice offer to BOS for Rondo IMO.
              (We could even get in on a deal to help BOS aquire Beasley (rumor) to add to the total package.)

              TPTB would want to ADD Rondo w/ the rest of our starting 4, not rebuild our lineup. Doing this, & keeping as much bench as possible would really make us a force.

              Comment


              • Re: Larry Bird: "We're going to try and strengthen this team"

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                Well if we sign Roy to 14mil and Hill to 7mil are we going to still have cap space money?
                Not if we sign them first, but we wouldn't. The idea would be to sign the free agent first while keeping the cap holds on Roy and Hill. Spend our way up to the 58 mil cap, then sign Roy and Hill to skirt the edge of the LT. This will be our last chance to do anything in free agency. After we sign Roy we'll stay between the 58 mil cap and the 70 mil LT for a very long time.
                We had better not give Hill 7 mil. I'd rather let him walk if some other team wants to pay him that much.
                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                Comment


                • Re: Larry Bird: "We're going to try and strengthen this team"

                  Originally posted by Hibbert View Post
                  I'm sorry but nobody is just going to throw a team draft picks just for salary cap, especially a first. Pacers might make a move, although if we do it will be a small one, nothing major.
                  It's happened before.

                  http://www.nba.com/suns/news/thomas_trade_070720.html

                  Comment


                  • Re: Larry Bird: "We're going to try and strengthen this team"

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Yes, I'm aware that it has happened before but everytime it has been a bad contract that nobody wanted therefore they have to give up a pick or two. My point was that some people may be giving their hopes up in thinking that we have the most cap available out of any team and thinking that we are going to get a great player in return for cap relief. I just don't see it and would rather keep the money unless we can get some kind of upgrade to our bench or a promising young player in return. We could get a pick perhaps two with our cap space but we would more than likely get that in return for a large contract with years remaining and I just don't think it's likely at this point after four years of getting to where we are now.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Larry Bird: "We're going to try and strengthen this team"

                      Originally posted by Hibbert View Post
                      Yes, I'm aware that it has happened before but everytime it has been a bad contract that nobody wanted therefore they have to give up a pick or two. My point was that some people may be giving their hopes up in thinking that we have the most cap available out of any team and thinking that we are going to get a great player in return for cap relief. I just don't see it and would rather keep the money unless we can get some kind of upgrade to our bench or a promising young player in return. We could get a pick perhaps two with our cap space but we would more than likely get that in return for a large contract with years remaining and I just don't think it's likely at this point after four years of getting to where we are now.
                      Does the CBA require teams to spend a given percentage of their cap? I think the NBL has that........

                      Comment


                      • Re: Larry Bird: "We're going to try and strengthen this team"

                        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                        Does the CBA require teams to spend a given percentage of their cap? I think the NBL has that........
                        Yes. 85% of the cap, I do believe.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Larry Bird: "We're going to try and strengthen this team"

                          Originally posted by Hibbert View Post
                          Those are two decent examples but at the same time, major exceptions.
                          Sure, because it's super rare for a team to have enough free capspace to make that kind of deal.
                          Originally posted by Hibbert View Post
                          we are [not] going to get a great player in return for cap relief.
                          Both of the deals I proposed are teams looking to shed non-essential salary who could be asked to give up a pick for the privilege. In Boston's case, it saves them the remainder of Jermaine's salary, plus ~7mil in luxury tax payments. In New Jersey's case, it allows them to pursue Dwight Howard and potentially keep D. Williams.

                          In both cases, a pick is a reasonable payment for letting them wipe a troublesome contract off their books.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X