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

Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

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

  • #16
    Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

    I would do that Nets deal. I think Jefferson if he can stay healthy would flourish when more is expected of him and when he's out from under the shadow of Kidd and Carter. I think he's actually a better player than he's shown thus far. I think he could be our starting shooting guard for the next 6 years or so and we wouldn't have to worry about that position for several years.

    Krstic also I think is someone who is worth getting.

    For some reason yesterday I wasn't to excited about this deal, but the more I think about it the more I like it
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-29-2007, 08:58 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      I would do that Nets deal. I think Jefferson if he can stay healthy would flourish when more is expected of him and when he's out from under the shadow of Kidd and Carter. I think he's actually a better player than he's shown thus far. I think he could be our starting shooting guard for the next 6 years or so and we wouldn't have to worry about it during that time.

      Krstic also I think is someonw who is worth getting.

      For some reason yesterday I wasn't to excited about this deal, but the more I think about it the more I like it
      Especially if it screws the Lakers.
      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

        Honestly? I would have rather done a Odom-less Laker trade than consider that NJ trade.

        Now, I'm not so sure. The pick would have been a draw, but now it's too late.

        Plus, we've waived Greene, which is STUPID since we don't have to waive him until October.

        This summer is going to give me the screaming heebie-jeebies.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          Plus, we've waived Greene, which is STUPID since we don't have to waive him until October.
          Are you sure about that?

          From Tuesday's article on Pacers.com:

          http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/web_070626.html

          Bird said the team has not yet decided whether to pick up the option on reserve guard Orien Greene. The deadline is June 30.
          "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
          -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

            I don't think the Net offer is that bad at all. Richard Jefferson is a all star caliber smallforward who is in his prime, and Kristic is young low post scorer who is talented and improving. Obviously if we made this trade we would need to make other moves such as getting rid of our log jam at Sf and adding a athletic powerforward who can rebound and block shots but in general both of these guys are very good players.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post

              Plus, we've waived Greene, which is STUPID since we don't have to waive him until October.
              Not STUPID at all!

              If we hadn't let him go by July !st we would have had to pay him.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I would do that Nets deal. I think Jefferson if he can stay healthy would flourish when more is expected of him and when he's out from under the shadow of Kidd and Carter. I think he's actually a better player than he's shown thus far. I think he could be our starting shooting guard for the next 6 years or so and we wouldn't have to worry about it during that time.

                Krstic also I think is someone who is worth getting.

                For some reason yesterday I wasn't to excited about this deal, but the more I think about it the more I like it
                I'm in the exact same boat as you UB.

                I think that if we want to win now then the NJ offer is by far the best.

                PG: Tinsley
                SG: Jefferson
                SF: Granger
                PF: Ike
                C: Kristic
                6th Man: Dunleavy

                I think that on offense Ike and Kristic would complament each other well. On defense that is a different story though.

                One problem I would have with this trade is the fact that I would NOT EVER want to see Kristic and Murphy play together. However I fear that would happen. From the way it sounds, OB likes Murphy. But neither Kristic or Murphy are good defenders. We would need another big in there to do that.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                  Originally posted by rommie View Post
                  I'm in the exact same boat as you UB.

                  I think that if we want to win now then the NJ offer is by far the best.

                  PG: Tinsley
                  SG: Jefferson
                  SF: Granger
                  PF: Ike
                  C: Kristic
                  6th Man: Dunleavy

                  I think that on offense Ike and Kristic would complament each other well. On defense that is a different story though.

                  One problem I would have with this trade is the fact that I would NOT EVER want to see Kristic and Murphy play together. However I fear that would happen. From the way it sounds, OB likes Murphy. But neither Kristic or Murphy are good defenders. We would need another big in there to do that.
                  With that lineup I'd worry about the interior defense, but the defensive combo of Granger and RJ would be very potent - of course I'd like to get a different point guard. Having said that I could live with that lineup -having Dunleavy, Foster, Daniels, Williams coming off the bench would be very nice.
                  That would be a very interesting team. (My biggest fear is that we wouldn't have that one star player - but we really don't have one now

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    With that lineup I'd worry about the interior defense, but the defensive combo of Granger and RJ would be very potent - of course I'd like to get a different point guard. Having said that I could live with that lineup -having Dunleavy, Foster, Daniels, Williams coming off the bench would be very nice.
                    That would be a very interesting team. (My biggest fear is that we wouldn't have that one star player - but we really don't have one now
                    Could always change the lineup a little bit.

                    One thing is I think that we could take the blueprint of the Pistons. They really don't have a star just several very good players. Billups is the guy who takes over in the clutch. But none of the Pistons are really franchise players, just several very good players.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                      I'm sure this probably is true, in this format...

                      Nets - Hey, I hear JO is on the market. Let's see if we can get him, what can it hurt to ask.

                      Pacers - Hmm, well we don't like that package but you do have a PG and your offer is at least starting in the ballpark. Let's discuss it some more.

                      Nets - oh, we can't give up Williams, but maybe we can work something else

                      Pacers - we'll see I suppose, talk to you later perhaps


                      That doesn't require any lies in these leaks, doesn't require the Pacers or Nets to be doing something "stupid", and doesn't require that a deal actually get done. Why WOULDN'T you listen at least?

                      My only issue is when reports on this stuff are repositioned by the press as "Deal in the works". Maybe technically, but really this is just very early on feeling things out. Doesn't sound like either side is anywhere close to comfortable with what the other side wants to do.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                        From a pure talent standpoint, I like the trade is a pretty good one, as neither guy is old, both are talented, and they should be able to make up for JO's production.

                        The problem is that while RJ has played SG in the past, it's not his natural position. That means we'd be accepting a guy making 12 million who plays Danny and Shawne's (and Dunleavy's) position, and we'd still be looking at a really thin backcourt.

                        If we could get RJ to a third team and get young players and/or future picks, that would make it acceptable. Otherwise, I wouldn't be interested.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                          Originally posted by Eindar View Post

                          The problem is that while RJ has played SG in the past, it's not his natural position. That means we'd be accepting a guy making 12 million who plays Danny and Shawne's (and Dunleavy's) position, and we'd still be looking at a really thin backcourt.

                          Offensively it doesn't matter if he is a natural small forward or shooting guard - offensively the two positions are or at least can be completely interchangible. So I have no worries at all there. The question is always can he guard his position - and I think he clearly can without question - certainly better than anyone else we currently have.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            Offensively it doesn't matter if he is a natural small forward or shooting guard - offensively the two positions are or at least can be completely interchangible. So I have no worries at all there. The question is always can he guard his position - and I think he clearly can without question - certainly better than anyone else we currently have.

                            I completely agree, its all about who you can guard and I do think RJ can guard the 2s of the league and therefore can play the 2.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                              Here's an update of sorts out of NY. Sounds like the Pacerts don't want Collins.


                              http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...red_kerber.htm

                              FOR O'NEAL STILL ON TABLE FOR NETS
                              By FRED KERBER


                              June 30, 2007 -- The efforts to bring Jermaine O'Neal to New Jersey may never reach fruition, with the Pacers far more captivated by pieces on the Lakers' roster. But that doesn't mean the deal is dead for the Nets, who also should get official notification today that Vince Carter is a free agent.
                              According to numerous NBA sources, the Nets and Pacers spoke Tuesday about a trade and put the basic components, including Richard Jefferson and Nenad Krstic, on the table. And when neither side accused the other of attempted larceny or walked out in a huff, it was agreed there would be additional discussions after the draft and the start of free agency.

                              "It was discussed, proposed, and then it was decided to wait until after the first (of July)," said one source who rated the chances of the deal going through as slightly less than half, "40 percent, which is still high" for such a deal.

                              Nets president Rod Thorn maintained his customary stance and declined to discuss the proposal.

                              "I don't have any comment," he said.

                              The Nets, who tried adding Jason Collins to the deal but the Pacers balked, have an important free-agency agenda. The Nets expect to receive Carter's announced intention to opt out of the last year of his contract today; he sent it yesterday. Carter should get a four-year deal worth $60-65 million, which he could sign July 11, after the league moratorium ends. The Nets have another key free-agency decision with Mikki Moore.

                              Carter could return to a team where the Big Three includes O'Neal and his low-post game instead of Jefferson and his perimeter-oriented, finishing game. If the Pacers reject the inclusion of Collins, the Nets would perhaps need to add Mile Ilic to make the deal work contractually.

                              O'Neal will make $19.728 million next season, Jefferson will get $12.2 million, Krstic is set for $1.889 million. So the two Nets make $14 million, and the team would have to add someone, such as Ilic, to make the trade balance.

                              Sounds great, but the problem is the Pacers, sources maintained, are intent on trying to pry Andrew Bynum and Lamar Odom from the Lakers if they are to deal O'Neal, a 6-foot, 11-inch, 28-year-old with lifetime averages of 14.4 points, 7.8 rebounds and 1.9 blocks.

                              The Nets added to their front court in the draft with Sean Williams, a 6-10 shot-blocker who was dismissed from the Boston College team last season.

                              "I think he'll help us very quickly because he defends," Stefanski said. "He is exactly what we need. He can defend and run and block shots. He was the best player available (at pick No. 17), and if all of the other stuff were not a factor, he would have gone [No.] 6-10."

                              The "other stuff" is Williams' history with marijuana that led to an arrest, suspensions, him being bounced from the Boston College team, and some really bad puns. Yeah, the Nets went to pot; went up in smoke; Williams and Cliff Robinson (who has a pot-suspension history) can be the Doobie Brothers; the Nets need to weed out any problems and learn to roll with things; etc.

                              But after interviews with Williams and those around him, including BC coach Al Skinner, a Net when Thorn was an assistant coach, the Nets were sold on Williams. And don't underestimate the value of their veteran leadership, specifically Jason Kidd, as an influence on Williams, who averaged 12.1 points, 6.9 rebounds and a school record 5.0 blocks.

                              "There was no one thing (that convinced the Nets)," Thorn said of homework before the draft. "We gathered all the information we could and tried to make an informed decision."

                              Williams, who is expected to compete on the Nets summer-league team in Orlando next month, will be formally introduced Monday. Under collective-bargaining-agreement guidelines, he'll make $1,416,600 next season.

                              fred.kerber@nypost.com

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                                Hmm...I'm strangely also beginning to warm up to this. I like RJ a lot better than Odom. I think he could easily be an all-star next year. And while he is not young, he is not exactly old. Also, he has some solid experience and could be a good presence on an otherwise young-ish team. I'm slightly worried about Krstic and RJ's injury history but if they stay healthy then we got two very nice starters in a deal for JO, which is pretty good.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X