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

Denver rejects Knicks offer?

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

  • #16
    Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    At this moment I just hope Melo pulls a Lebron and leave's them on the dust, Denver.
    Normally you & I are on the same page but in this case I am not.

    Why should Denver happily jump head first into being a bottom feeder? To the best of my knowledge they are not at fault in his desire to leave. They've offered the max contract to him and he doesn't want it, now through no fault of their own their franchise is about to go into oblivion once again.

    If I were them I would either get exactly what I want or if I were going to lose him anyway then I would be willing to just get nothing as opposed to give him exactly what he wants and get stuck with something I don't want.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

      In all fairness to Carmelo, he has told the Nuggets from the start that he's not signing an extension there, and they've been holding out hope that he would have a change of heart.

      I remember during the summer when Team USA was playing and it was being said the Nuggets were waiting for Billups to get back in hopes that Carmello would have a change of heart. Then they were waiting for him to get back around his team and teammates hoping that would convince him.

      They've done NOTHING, even when Carmello has told them from day one he's not coming back, trying to allow them a plan of action.

      I think Carmello is completely capable of just leaving them with nothing this summer, and not feel bad about it.

      Folks talk about the money he'll lose, but he'll make all of that back plus some in endorsements in New York...on the Knicks

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        Normally you & I are on the same page but in this case I am not.

        Why should Denver happily jump head first into being a bottom feeder? To the best of my knowledge they are not at fault in his desire to leave. They've offered the max contract to him and he doesn't want it, now through no fault of their own their franchise is about to go into oblivion once again.

        If I were them I would either get exactly what I want or if I were going to lose him anyway then I would be willing to just get nothing as opposed to give him exactly what he wants and get stuck with something I don't want.
        I'm fairly certain any GM with at least half a brain would "want" Derrick Favors and 2 high-end 1st round picks. Let's not pretend the Nets were offering little.

        No GM gets "exactly" what he wants in a deal, especially a deal involving a superstar. That's silly talk.

        If the Nuggets jump head first into bottom feeder status with that king's ransom, they haven't done a good job building around him to begin with. I'd definitely say that's "their" fault.
        Last edited by Kstat; 01-22-2011, 05:18 PM.

        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


        • #19
          Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post

          Minnesota and Indiana are the likeliest destinations for Randolph because both teams have an available first-round pick that the Knicks can use in a trade for Anthony.
          I sure hope it isn't the Pacers because Randolph is in no way worth a 1st round pick, maybe a couple second rounders, but hell no to a 1st.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

            Hollinger made a strong case that they should just keep Melo:
            http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...PERDiem-110121

            Originally posted by Hollinger

            That's a risk, obviously, and there's a chance the Nuggets wake up on July 1 with their best player as an unrestricted free agent who can leave them without compensation.

            However, a few other factors mitigate that risk to a major degree:

            First, as Ford pointed out in another recent piece, the Knicks don't have enough salary cap space to sign Anthony to a max contract, which means the door has been left wide open for the Nuggets to work out a sign-and-trade with New York in the offseason that brings back most of the same assets. In particular, the Knicks would have to renounce their rights to Wilson Chandler in any case, so it would make sense to put him into a sign-and-trade with the Nuggets.

            Depending on what curveballs the new CBA gives us, including potentially a lower salary cap, the Knicks would also have to jettison another salary or two to fit Anthony into their cap, meaning the likes of Toney Douglas, Randolph or whomever the Knicks take with their first-round pick this year could also end up in the deal. In other words, the deal ends up being largely similar to the one currently on the table.
            ...

            In other words, the Nuggets' worst-case scenario doesn't seem that bad. They could sign another big-dollar free agent -- say, David West -- have cap room left over to fill in any gaps (with a renounced Wilson Chandler being another potential target) and end up with a reasonable facsimile of the second-tier Western playoff team they currently have.

            Finally, there's a third reason that the risk might not be as great as it seems: The next collective bargaining agreement could bail them out of this situation entirely, by allowing a team to place a "franchise tag" on its best player to block his exit. With such a stipulation, the Anthony drama could abruptly end. Depending on the particulars of the rule, he might get his max extension in Denver, and it might be business as usual for the Nuggets.
            2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

              call me crazy, but david west or wilson chandler when you could have had favors and two lottery picks DOES sound bad.

              Then again, Hollinger doesn't even watch basketball.

              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


              • #22
                Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                At this moment I just hope Melo pulls a Lebron and leave's them on the dust, Denver.
                Why are so many angry with Denver over this whole thing? They have made a huge investment in Anthony over the years, and it seems all they are trying to do is protect the best interests of the team.

                If you were in their shoes, would you have accepted that load of poop that NY offered? I wouldn't.

                Listen, at this point Denver is bending to the wishes of the player as far as who they have talked to. I don't blame them for trying to maximize their end of the deal. I'd say Anthony.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

                  Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                  I think it would be great if Denver dealt him to a team that he had absolutely no desire to re-sign with, and that team also refused to do a S&T over the summer. Just so he would lose out on all that money. Serves these greedy mofos right for dragging their teams and fans through this crap.
                  I wish there was a button for multiple thanks for one post.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

                    Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                    Folks talk about the money he'll lose, but he'll make all of that back plus some in endorsements in New York...on the Knicks
                    What endorsements would he get that he can't get now? I just don't buy into that. Are more people going to know who he is because he is a Knick? Highly doubtful. That's just NY hype at its best.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      I'm fairly certain any GM with at least half a brain would "want" Derrick Favors and 2 high-end 1st round picks. Let's not pretend the Nets were offering little.

                      No GM gets "exactly" what he wants in a deal, especially a deal involving a superstar. That's silly talk.

                      If the Nuggets jump head first into bottom feeder status with that king's ransom, they haven't done a good job building around him to begin with. I'd definitely say that's "their" fault.
                      I thought NJ pulled back, at least in part, because they were having second thoughts about his willingness to sign the extension. I also think they maybe finally realized that Anthony is no world beater. Good? Yes, but not great.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

                        Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                        I think it would be great if Denver dealt him to a team that he had absolutely no desire to re-sign with, and that team also refused to do a S&T over the summer. Just so he would lose out on all that money. Serves these greedy mofos right for dragging their teams and fans through this crap.

                        So....,
                        If you ever decide that, for your own desire, the betterment of your family, a betterment of your quality of your life, for peace of mind, or for a new opportunity you desire, if you ever decide to leave your job/ school/ relationship for what ever reason you deem necessary, you support the full right of the current job/ school/ relationship to do whatever is in their power to hurt you - professionally, socially, finacially, and emotionally - just because they may want you to stay where you are, and they do not want to see you go? And you think this is reasonable?
                        Really?.....
                        Slavery ended years ago, & Mello & his family (like any of us) have the right to free will, to pick and whose who they wish to work for and where they choose to live and who they live with. Mello is not holding out, dishonoring his current contract, he is not keeping his plans secret so his current institution is caught off guard or ill prepared to deal with his "unexpected" departure. He is not being mean, spiteful or hurtful towards others. He just wants to go - go and start a new life, new opportunities, a new beginning. Something tells me he has earned that right, and you think he should be deprived of that right?
                        Really?.....
                        My friend, your comments are way off base. I can understand (to a point) because you are a "fan", & "fan" is shotr for "fanatic". Well, be it fanatic, manic, delusional, or disillusioned, they all fit IMO, and its rather sad. So while it is understandable (kinda), for you to be upset, it is no less sad, and against every princible this counrty was founded on.

                        (PS: he's only a man, playing a game, wanting you to like him - Get over it!)
                        "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                        (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

                          Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post

                          So....,
                          If you ever decide that, for your own desire, the betterment of your family, a betterment of your quality of your life, for peace of mind, or for a new opportunity you desire, if you ever decide to leave your job/ school/ relationship for what ever reason you deem necessary, you support the full right of the current job/ school/ relationship to do whatever is in their power to hurt you - professionally, socially, finacially, and emotionally - just because they may want you to stay where you are, and they do not want to see you go? And you think this is reasonable?
                          Really?.....
                          Slavery ended years ago, & Mello & his family (like any of us) have the right to free will, to pick and whose who they wish to work for and where they choose to live and who they live with. Mello is not holding out, dishonoring his current contract, he is not keeping his plans secret so his current institution is caught off guard or ill prepared to deal with his "unexpected" departure. He is not being mean, spiteful or hurtful towards others. He just wants to go - go and start a new life, new opportunities, a new beginning. Something tells me he has earned that right, and you think he should be deprived of that right?
                          Really?.....
                          My friend, your comments are way off base. I can understand (to a point) because you are a "fan", & "fan" is shotr for "fanatic". Well, be it fanatic, manic, delusional, or disillusioned, they all fit IMO, and its rather sad. So while it is understandable (kinda), for you to be upset, it is no less sad, and against every princible this counrty was founded on.

                          (PS: he's only a man, playing a game, wanting you to like him - Get over it!)
                          And you say this because poor Melo who keeps his freedom, can practice his craft, and can go wherever he pleases and makes many more millions of dollars than the rest of us can imagine might lose 30M or so?
                          Your compassion for the underdog brings me to tears.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

                            Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                            What endorsements would he get that he can't get now? I just don't buy into that. Are more people going to know who he is because he is a Knick? Highly doubtful. That's just NY hype at its best.
                            It's not about people knowing him, that's obvious, it's about location. Why do you think players like going to bigger markets? There's more opportunity. Actors, musicians, models.. business people in general aren't going to Denver.

                            They're going to NY, LA, Chicago even. I don't see how that's all hype? Endorsements are more than shoe and clothing deals. It's businesses paying for you to appear here, appear there, be in this magazine, that magazine, have a cameo in this movie, shoot a role on this team show, sponsor here, sponsor there.

                            Just b/c you don't see all of the endorsements from your state or location, doesn't mean they're not there

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

                              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                              And you say this because poor Melo who keeps his freedom, can practice his craft, and can go wherever he pleases and makes many more millions of dollars than the rest of us can imagine might lose 30M or so?
                              Your compassion for the underdog brings me to tears.
                              The money he makes is what everyone talks about, but is NO bearing on what his rights are. Mello will be rich where ever he goes, true, but that does not mean he doesn't have the right to free will, does it?
                              Again, if this was Jo Shmoe wanting to manage a pizza joint in NY vs. DEN because he wants to live in NY, would anyone care or hate?
                              (thought not)
                              "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                              (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Denver rejects Knicks offer?

                                Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
                                The money he makes is what everyone talks about, but is NO bearing on what his rights are. Mello will be rich where ever he goes, true, but that does not mean he doesn't have the right to free will, does it?
                                Again, if this was Jo Shmoe wanting to manage a pizza joint in NY vs. DEN because he wants to live in NY, would anyone care or hate?
                                (thought not)
                                First he can go to NY; no question.
                                Second he is part of an organized system that requires some parity and therefore limits his mobility. Don't mix up his personal freedoms with his so called rights. To make a living we give up some personal choices such as you get a job with a national organization and they say Dallas and you say NY? You go into the military and they say iraq and you say California.
                                His personal freedom is no more violated than yours or mine.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X