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

Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

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

  • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

    meh...Kobe+JO is not kobe+Shaq...
    and even then kobe and shaq had guys like horry and fisher and rick fox. The lakers have Turiaf and farmar and scrubs. It looks good on paper...but meh...seriously consider how much chance you have to win a title out that way JO.
    "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

    Comment


    • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvba-5qUmns

      lol...damn corliss punked JO...JO then looks like he throws a punch at billups...LOL

      sorry OT
      "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

      Comment


      • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

        lol and look at ron trying to be the peacemaker!
        "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

        Comment


        • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

          Originally posted by OnlyPacersLeft View Post
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvba-5qUmns

          lol...damn corliss punked JO...JO then looks like he throws a punch at billups...LOL

          sorry OT
          I was never been more embarrased, amused and bewildered as a Pacers fan as I was that night.

          If they would have kept rolling at the end they would have shown J.O. pointing at me in the stands and yelling "you got something to say".

          I could not help myself. I was in hystarics laughing so hard I was crying.

          In my life I have never seen a guy act like he wanted to fight everybody but not want to fight anybody. When he tore up Tree Rollins that was all I could take, I litterally was laying in my seat laughing. Diamond Dave was laughing to. BTW, before I moved to the crappy seats in the club level, those were my seats just off to J.O.'s right (when he is facing you).

          Oh the memorys.

          Jalen punching Dick Baveta to get Pat Ewing to quit chashing him

          Ron chasing down the wrong man instead of standing up to Ben Wallace

          And Jeramaine O'Neal fighting with Tree Rollins


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

          Comment


          • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

            Originally posted by Swingman View Post
            It's not that lopsided if they want to win now instead of later. Trade wouldn't be fair without LO and Bynum and we can't match salaries without Brown being included. Artest's comments cost us Kevin Martin so it's just as fair that Kobe's comments cost them the #19th pick. How else will they get an All-Star for Kobe?
            The rumor is that Kobe Bryant told Baron Davis that he thought from a team standpoint that Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum for Jermaine O'Neal was a lateral move, and he'd still demand a trade. Other options would be Ron Artest, who could be had for Kwame Brown and the 19th pick. Miami's offer of Jason Williams and the 20th pick is satisfactory, but the Kings are likely to keep Bibby. Unless Miami includes Udonis Haslem, the Laker deal is "in the lead." Which is why LA should do everything in their power to keep that 19th pick out of the deal and substitute it with a young player, possibly Jordan Farmar or Sasha Vujacic. Also, Denver has shown interest in Luke Walton and Jordan Farmar, possibly included with Chris Mihm, for Marcus Camby. Lakers are also in talks with Grant Hill, who will only sign with a contender, for the mid-level exception.

            LA is on a timetable, set by Kobe Bryant.

            Comment


            • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

              Good news for Pacer fans... Odom seems to want to be traded anywhere as long as hes accepted by the other Organization..

              His cell and home phones ring constantly, and he gets countless text messages daily.

              All his friends and family have the same questions for Lamar Odom.

              "Yo, L.O., you getting traded? Yo, L.O., you going to the Pacers? Yo, L.O., what's up?"

              Odom can't go anywhere without hearing his name being mentioned along with Lakers teammate Andrew Bynum and the team's No. 1 draft pick (19) in a deal for Indiana's Jermaine O'Neal.

              "Of course I'm getting called all the time about that," Odom said in a phone interview. "It's flattering. But I want to be a Laker."

              Odom had surgery last month to repair a torn labrum in his left shoulder that will require four months to heal.

              He will get an MRI next week on his right knee to determine if he needs surgery for a sprained MCL.

              Having a surgery -- or two -- wouldn't necessarily prohibit Odom from being a part of a potential blockbuster trade this summer.

              "I hope they don't have to do the surgery," Odom said. "But if they do, it'll be done in time to be ready for the season."

              Recently, Odom listened intently to teammate Kobe Bryant vent.

              Bryant demanded to be traded, rescinded that and asked to be traded again, leaving Odom to say "that was a wild week."

              Odom said he spoke with Bryant late last week.

              "I couldn't tell if he was frustrated," Odom said. "But for us to have a conversation, obviously something had to be up."

              Could Odom gauge whether Bryant wanted to be traded or remain with the Lakers?

              "I have no idea," Odom said. "Nor would I ever ask him that."

              Odom, who averaged 15.9 points, 9.8 rebounds and 4.8 assists last season, injured his shoulder March 2. But he missed just five games, playing in pain the rest of the season and in the playoffs.

              He has been traded before, coming to LA from Miami as part of the Shaquille O'Neal deal in 2004.

              Odom wants to play for the Lakers but said the business of sports dictates that players have to move on.

              "I'm 100 percent down for the Lakers," Odom said. "But you have to understand that this is a business. Nobody likes to be traded off their team. But if you do, hopefully your game protects you and puts you in a situation where it's comfortable, as far as being accepted by the other organization."


              LINK

              Just proves ESPN is never perfect.
              "To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe." - Anatole France

              Comment


              • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                My only question is: Who will they put on the floor with JO and Kobe?
                3 people who will never see the basketball.

                -Bball
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  3 people who will never see the basketball.

                  -Bball
                  Might make running the triangle a little tough ...
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    3 people who will never see the basketball.

                    -Bball
                    Yeah, but just think if they actually acquired Ron as well.

                    Then you'd have two people with popcorn who could care less whether they every saw the basketball, being entertained by three people who were fighting over the basketball.

                    Heck, Ron could have Jack Nicholson pulling the rest of his hair out in no time at all.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                      Ron would be a bad idea for the Lakers.

                      Signing Grant Hill, though, would be great. Grant would be perfect with JO and Kobe.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                        This last part from Odom is kind of wierd. What does this mean?

                        But if you do, hopefully your game protects you and puts you in a situation where it's comfortable, as far as being accepted by the other organization.
                        Maybe I'm the type that interpret's things differently....but I have no clue what he means by how his game can protect him from whatever the heck he is talking about.

                        Does that mean that his game is so good and so valuable to the Lakers that they would have serious concerns IF they had to ever consider trading him?

                        Also....why would he ever think that he wouldn't be accepted by whatever team that he is sent to?

                        The main reason why he is even included in the trade is because the Pacers want to have him included OVER Kwame ( assuming that the trade is just Odom+Bynum+19 ).

                        I don't know...maybe he's just upset about being traded so often....like a team never ends up keeping him since he has always been traded from team to team ( LAC to Miami then to LAL ).
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          Ron would be a bad idea for the Lakers.

                          Signing Grant Hill, though, would be great. Grant would be perfect with JO and Kobe.
                          If it were Grant Hill or Artest....although I think that Artest would make them the better team ( imagine a defensive lineup of Kobe/Artest/JONeal ) .....you're probably right.......Hill isn't the type of guy that could be considered a #2 type of guy that can come in and take over for any team that he joins. In this stage of his career....he can easily go in and be that 3rd fiddle to JONeal and Kobe while being a great teammate.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            If it were Grant Hill or Artest....although I think that Artest would make them the better team ( imagine a defensive lineup of Kobe/Artest/JONeal ) .....you're probably right.......Hill isn't the type of guy that could be considered a #2 type of guy that can come in and take over for any team that he joins. In this stage of his career....he can easily go in and be that 3rd fiddle to JONeal and Kobe while being a great teammate.
                            Exactly. He's fundamentally sound and a smart player. He'd do well in the triangle. He passes well, and could set up either player.

                            I think the Lakers should target JO and Hill. They'd have a pretty good team, even without Odom and Bynum.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              This last part from Odom is kind of wierd. What does this mean?



                              Maybe I'm the type that interpret's things differently....but I have no clue what he means by how his game can protect him from whatever the heck he is talking about.

                              Does that mean that his game is so good and so valuable to the Lakers that they would have serious concerns IF they had to ever consider trading him?

                              Also....why would he ever think that he wouldn't be accepted by whatever team that he is sent to?

                              The main reason why he is even included in the trade is because the Pacers want to have him included OVER Kwame ( assuming that the trade is just Odom+Bynum+19 ).

                              I don't know...maybe he's just upset about being traded so often....like a team never ends up keeping him since he has always been traded from team to team ( LAC to Miami then to LAL ).
                              I think he's just saying that you hope you are good enough to gain the respect of the acquiring team and that team's players. Good enough that a team wants you to be a major part of what they are doing.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vescey: Lakers will be acquiring JO

                                ^^ yeah i think its still about the contract and renegotiating with it (being accepted as a part of the longterm plans of the organization). look he's a talented guy doesn't have a max contract but a nice-sized one, and yet this will be the third time he'll be traded (I think or did he sign with miami as a FA?) and the second time to help a SG's championship aspirations. thats gotta be hard on the ego. we're not talking about kenny thomas or jeff foster, we're talking about a legit #2 option on most teams. i can understand why he'd be frustrated and would like to renegotiate so that he doesn't have to do this again. but i just don't think teams are going to do that when he's been injured so much and will be coming off one if not two surgeries.
                                This is the darkest timeline.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X