Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

    Seriously, guys, true happiness comes from ignoring this thread. Let our West Coast friends talk all they want, as long as it's in here we don't have to see it.

    You'll be amazed how much better you feel once you stop worrying about this and go on with your lives. This thing will just drag you down.

    The deal is dead. Now it's time to let the thread die.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

      I think able (among others) have hit the nail on the head.

      Comment


      • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
        Seriously, guys, true happiness comes from ignoring this thread. Let our West Coast friends talk all they want, as long as it's in here we don't have to see it.

        You'll be amazed how much better you feel once you stop worrying about this and go on with your lives. This thing will just drag you down.

        The deal is dead. Now it's time to let the thread die.
        Or, put another way:



        Comment


        • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          Or, put another way:



          but what am I supposed to do with leftovers now? It would make no sense to throw away perfectly good food

          Comment


          • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

            Does throwing food at them count as feeding them?

            I'm with Anthem on all this, I think it's all moot at this point. Pat has come through and it's time to get on board and see how he/she pans out.

            Comment


            • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              I'm with Anthem on all this, I think it's all moot at this point. Pat has come through and it's time to get on board and see how he/she pans out.
              Haha, so true. That's the best part of Stand Pat - the unpredictability. All you have to do is change the coach and add a few role players and BOOM, the intrigue returns. I've said it before and I'll say it again: JO will not be traded before the season, no way, no how.

              Comment


              • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                Okay, so you're not answering the question, no biggie. It looks like the thread's going nowhere. That's fine by me.

                In the future, maybe not exhibiting boorish behavior will get your farther. Cheerio

                Originally posted by gng930 View Post
                I don't know...what's your point in even confronting me about this? But I'll give you the same answer that I did to Kegboy when he asked the same...to determine the meaning of life.



                Why would that surprise anyone? You're a Laker fan right?



                Gosh I didn't realize I had EVER implied that the trade would be completely risk-free for either side. Better go back and check those tapes.



                Hey I got no problem with that either, as long as we can contend while we "see". Ask me if I'd rather give up Odom or Bynum in a deal for JO and I'll say Odom 11 times out of 10. But I realize it's impractical so I've accepted that there's no way a deal can be completed without Bynum.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                  I know that a "JO to LA" trade is pretty much dead right now. But, I just wanted to get your guys' thoughts on some of my trade scenarios.

                  This first trade is my ideal scenario. But, it's probably not going to be enough for you guys:

                  Odom, Bynum, Kwame, Farmar, and draft pick(s) for JO, Granger, and Murphy



                  A twist on that trade is involving the Nets and making it a three-way trade:

                  Nets outgoing: Richard Jefferson, Marcus Williams, Jason Collins, and Josh Boone
                  Nets incoming: Odom, Dunleavy, Farmar, Harrison

                  Lakers outgoing: Odom, Bynum, Kwame, and Farmar
                  Lakers incoming: JO, Granger, and Murphy

                  Pacers outgoing: JO, Granger, Murphy, Dunleavy and Harrison
                  Pacers incoming: Jefferson, Bynum, Marcus Williams, Kwame, Collins, and Boone



                  As you can see, I really want JO and Granger on the Lakers. But, I don't know if there's a scenario in which that could happen that is both realistic and makes sense for all teams involved. So, I'm willing to compromise. Would you guys be willing to give up Shawne Williams?

                  Odom, Bynum, Kwame, and Vujacic for JO, Shawne Williams, Murphy, and Harrison

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                    I'll only comment on this one (the other hurts to think about):

                    Odom, Bynum, Kwame, Farmar, and draft pick(s) for JO, Granger, and Murphy

                    This is a giveaway to the Lakers. The only players here that matter are Odom, Bynum, JO and Granger.

                    Both Granger and JO played all-star weekend. I don't remember seeing Bynum or Odom. JO is a better PF than Odom by a large margin. Granger is a better player right now than Bynum...by some distance as well...and most definitely more proven.

                    I know Bynum, Farmar and the picks have potential, but if you want to talk about potential, let's discuss Jon Bender or David Harrison. Potential does not pay the bills or win games. This franchise is not in a position to give up their current franchise player and their most promising young player for Lamar Odom and an unproven player.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                      Originally posted by THE DAGGER View Post
                      I know that a "JO to LA" trade is pretty much dead right now. But, I just wanted to get your guys' thoughts on some of my trade scenarios.

                      This first trade is my ideal scenario. But, it's probably not going to be enough for you guys:

                      Odom, Bynum, Kwame, Farmar, and draft pick(s) for JO, Granger, and Murphy
                      No f'ing way on that one. We give up our two best players for that? There is no way you've got what it takes to get JO AND Granger - you don't have the assets to get JO alone, let alone to add Granger.

                      -snip-
                      As you can see, I really want JO and Granger on the Lakers. But, I don't know if there's a scenario in which that could happen that is both realistic and makes sense for all teams involved. So, I'm willing to compromise. Would you guys be willing to give up Shawne Williams?

                      Odom, Bynum, Kwame, and Vujacic for JO, Shawne Williams, Murphy, and Harrison
                      You'd need to add one of your PGs (I don't care which one) and at least one draft pick.

                      Under any of those scenarios, Odom wouldn't be staying in Indy long (as we don't need forwards but you have no guards worth discussing except Kobe) and Kwame would presumably be bought out immediately, so adding a PG and a pick might get it close enough that it would depend on what we could flip Odom to a third team for (preferably help at SG.)

                      Would the Clippers want Odom back in exchange for Maggette (+ salary cap necessities)?

                      Could a third team get us a really good SG in exchange for Odom + Brown. If I'm the Lakers, that's what I'm trying to accomplish while the rest of the world assumes that a Lakers-Pacers deal is dead.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                        Originally posted by THE DAGGER View Post
                        Odom, Bynum, Kwame, and Vujacic for JO, Shawne Williams, Murphy, and Harrison
                        Like Jay said, I'd be fine with this if we got JC instead of Sasha. The pick's not a deal-breaker for me, since it would be one of the last ones in the first round. You'd probably be getting three starters from us, though, so it's not unreasonable to ask for a pick back.

                        EDIT: But on your "ideal" trade, why stop there? Go ahead and offer to throw in Mo if we give you Ike and Foster.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          EDIT: But on your "ideal" trade, why stop there? Go ahead and offer to throw in Mo if we give you Ike and Foster.
                          and since there is kind of a limit to the number of draft picks we can give... i'd like to give you our firsts in 08, 10, 12 and the right to switch picks with us in 09 and 11. would that be enough to get vladrad ::crossingfingerscrossingfingers::
                          This is the darkest timeline.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                            I have no problem replacing Vujacic with Farmar in my trade scenario that involved Shawne Williams. That was my initial trade idea, but it didn't work under the cap. ESPN Trade Machine said that the Lakers would have to cut $157,580 from the incoming trade value for the trade to be successful.

                            I'm not the most savvy with the cap rules. But, can the Lakers send $157,580 in cash to make up the difference for the trade to work?

                            So, basically:

                            Odom, Bynum, Kwame, Farmar, and $157,580 for JO, Shawne Williams, Murphy, and Harrison

                            Can that be done?

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                              Originally posted by Lakerstroll View Post
                              Okay, so you're not answering the question, no biggie. It looks like the thread's going nowhere. That's fine by me.

                              In the future, maybe not exhibiting boorish behavior will get your farther. Cheerio
                              I didn't answer your question because there is no answer other than that I wanted to engage in a basketball discussion. Initially I wanted to discuss potential deals, but I've obviously gotten side-tracked a little. Sorry if that isn't earth-shattering enough for you.

                              As for my boorish behavior, you're on the money. I have absolute contempt for anyone who dismisses those he disagrees with as "instant gratification, computer gaming kids, that have never probably worked a day in their lives."

                              But that's as far as I'll take it. Like I've said, I need to get back on track. If you have nothing to say in that regard that I guess we're done.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                                Originally posted by able View Post
                                Maybe it does, maybe you went Alipour on us again by misquoting me whilst maintaining your refusal of "Reading 101"

                                It was in this context:

                                "A reporter who's honesty is being questioned has an issue at hand he needs to address, when he doesn't the issue goes beyond "right or wrong" it goes straight into "integrity" and for that reason alone he should produce evidence, since he doesn't he should seriously consider another occupation.

                                The larger public's acceptance of lies is a worrysome development, one that in the past has never lead to anything good, perhaps instead of defending that attitude you should start thinking for yourself."

                                Read it a couple more times and perhaps you will start to understand that I was not even referring to you.

                                As for you final remark there; I would seriously stop trying to insult people, mods don't take nicely to that around here.




                                Perhaps you might consider paying attention, at least one professional reporter (Indy Star's M. Montieth) has asked him "the" question and he has not let him hear the tape either, whilst leaning towards believing him at that stage, MM has since changed his stance by the appearance of the tape in public. Eric Pincus, who should be known to you, has also confirmed that the soundbites floating around are the same as his, which leads to the conclusion that most likely Alipour made this up, as he did with the other quotes he had, and which in no part resemble the soundbites.
                                It were his words that condemned him, stating that more reporters were present, yet no one printed those remarks, no one has come to his support, if it looks like a duck...........




                                Again you seem to have to resort to namecalling to refute an argument, it only shows you have no case and your argument is merely held up to troll this board.




                                And your argument here being that only a SJC has the right to question people's integrity? Or are you suggesting that asking for proof of allegations that were denied, as in everyday life, is something one should not do?
                                Surely you can not be suggesting that the "little group of Pacers fans" is not worthy of knowing whether someone is smeering the reputation of their franchise player, or that the same person perhaps does the bidding of the mighty Lakers and tries to create a situation where there is none?
                                I can fully understand why you wouldn't want to know, but I am no Lakers fan, so I don't have that hangup.





                                I don't need approval of any person, except myself, as that is the one I am to live with all my life, but that has nothing to do with people accusing me of lying in which case IF I'm innocent I would do all I could to prove them wrong.

                                Comparing the people on this board with crackheads and calling us a small minority does not take away from the argument that there is proof that makes it far more likely that he fabricated the quote then that he has proof of it, you should stick to discussing the facts, not your believes and misconceptions.




                                That cloud is big enough to bring you here, and the thought that I'm presumptious is yours, I never made that presumption, nor did I make any assumptions, I just stated facts, which are perhaps hard for you to understand, but they usually are what holds the truth, not believes.

                                Whether this episode will cost him being taken serious or not is irrelevant, for at least all the Indy Star readers, the PD posters and those visiting here will now take his integrity in doubt, something I am sure doesn't bother ESPN as they have proven that other things then the truth occupy their minds.


                                I think it is time you brought proof to the table or shut up, innuendo and "believe him please" do not hold up here.
                                Let's end this cycle; most of our posts aren't even basketball related anymore, just responses with derogatory undertones:

                                * "...sign of the desperate" is a reference to the saying "Personal attacks are a sign of the desperate." It was in response to your suggestion that I needed work on my reading comprehension. If that wasn't your intent then I take it back.
                                * "strawman" is a reference to the term "strawman's fallacy" - I would be the strawman, not sure how that is a personal attack or insult.
                                * "crackhead" was not meant to demean Indy fans, but indicate how minute they are in the context of Alipour's reader base. I could have exercised better word choice.

                                I hope the rest of PD saw it that way and that the lack of any warning or revision from the mods is indicative of that.

                                I finally got a chance to read Montieth's blog and I think he sums it up well - both Alipour and JO and put themselves in compromising situations. He doesn't outright accuse anyone of lying but leaves it up to the reader as to who should be believed without leaving a biased impression.

                                On one hand, you have (at least) one Indy writer and scores of Indy fans that want to believe JO. OTOH, the majority of the rest of the sports media world and NBA fans are questioning JO's sincerity.

                                It's clearly a judgement call and I have made mine. Yours happens to differ so let's just leave it at that. You and I fall under the 2 "sides" I described above and our opinions happen to correspond accordingly. Is there really any point to continuing this discussion?

                                As I told Lakerstroll, my intent in joining PD was to discuss possible deals and I'd like to get back to that.
                                Last edited by gng930; 08-15-2007, 04:44 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X