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

ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

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

  • ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

    if Boston doesn't get another good veteran for him before the draft.

    This could be another option for the pacers if they can't get a good deal for JO.

    West
    Pierce
    Williams
    JO
    Foster

  • #2
    Re: ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

    Damn yo I said this days ago. How do we get those guys though?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

      Where da link at yo?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

        Sorry, didn't see your post. Went back and read it and can't believe so many people wouldn't want Pierce.

        I suggest Granger, Daniels and Murphy (murphy, dunleavy or tinsley will be needed to match salaries).
        Last edited by Swingman; 06-26-2007, 07:00 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

          Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
          Where da link at yo?
          It was on tv. The link is walk downstairs and turn on the tv and turn to ESPN.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

            http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns


            By Adrian Wojnarowski, Yahoo! Sports
            June 25, 2007


            As much as Boston Celtics general manager Danny Ainge wanted a bigger return for Al Jefferson and the No. 5 pick in the flat-lined, four-team blockbuster trade proposal that died on Monday, little was done for the franchise's trampled image when Indiana's Jermaine O'Neal turned out to be one more star privately disclosing disdain over the prospects of playing for the Celtics.
            First, it was Phoenix's Shawn Marion insisting that he didn't want to go to Boston.
            Then it was Minnesota's Kevin Garnett.
            And now it's O'Neal.


            Here's the problem for Ainge: According to a league executive, Paul Pierce has finally told team management that unless the Celtics come out of this week with a talented veteran co-star for him, they should expect him to make a public declaration soon after Thursday's draft that he wants a trade.
            "Danny is under tremendous pressure, from inside and outside, to get a deal for someone done this week," one league executive said.
            As hard as the Celtics, Pacers, Timberwolves and Lakers worked on the collapsed deal that would've sent Kevin Garnett to Los Angeles, Boston and Indiana couldn't come to terms with what they were to receive. The Pacers were uncomfortable with Andrew Bynum and Lamar Odom without minimally the Lakers' pick at 19, just as the Celtics believed they had to get more back for sending Jefferson, the emerging forward, and the fifth pick to Minnesota.
            There was some belief that Pierce was going to demand a trade upon his return from a wrist injury during the regular season, when the bottom fell out of Boston's season with 17 straight losses. He didn't do it.
            Ainge and Doc Rivers traveled to Phoenix on Monday night for a shared workout with the Suns that included Florida's Joakim Noah and Corey Brewer and Georgetown's Jeff Green on Tuesday. If Ainge has to pick one of those players – never mind China's Yi Jianlian – it appears that Pierce will soon let him know that he's not interested in the painstaking process of watching the kid develop beside him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

              If we could get Pierce without giving up JO, go for it.
              Super Bowl XLI Champions
              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




              Comment


              • #8
                Re: ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

                Why don't we just send JO over for Al Jefferson + change?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

                  Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                  Why don't we just send JO over for Al Jefferson + change?
                  that would be like sending my wife for the 19 year old model next door....





                  I'm not really married ...nor do I live next to a model....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

                    I believe there will be a number of teams interested in Pierce.

                    First you look at Dallas. I'm sure they will try their very best to add him. But I don't think they have what would interest Boston.

                    I think that the Pacers could be interested. Depending on what we have to give up. But if we could get Paul I really think that you have to re consider trading Jermaine.

                    I believe that we have a real shot at Paul. I believe that Paul, like anyone asking for a trade, is going to say where he wants to go. Right or wrong he will do so. Playing with Jermaine and playing for OB again I believe that would be very attractive for him.

                    I think what it comes down to is are we willing to give up on Shawne Williams? IDK that I am. But could a deal of Foster/Marquis/Shawne be enough to get Paul? IDK. I know that the asking price of the stars rumored to avaliable (Marion, Jermaine, KG) seems high. Defiantly a lot higher than what the 76ers got for AI IMO. So IDK. A team of Tinsley/Pierce/Granger/Jermaine/Foster is defiantly interesting. But does 2-3 good years of Paul and Jermaine worth giving up 10+ years of Shawne? Depends how high Larry thinks of Shawne I guess.

                    I believe we are a long shot but again when you go through and look at the teams that would likely want Paul, there are not many. Not because Paul is no good but because they don't need him.

                    I believe that the teams that would be most interested in Paul are maybe Indiana, Cleveland, Dallas, Utah maybe, Clippers, that's pretty much it IMO.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

                      Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                      Why don't we just send JO over for Al Jefferson + change?
                      Yeah, I think this makes Ainge desperate enough to trade Jefferson, 5th and change for JO just to make sure the Celtics are not stuck in rebuilding mode for even more years after having to trade away Pierce...

                      Also that kind of deal would be of good enough quality Larry would do it, Jefferson is good enough talent plus the 5th, I don't think Larry would see this as rebuilding, but as a retooling, like what he says he wants to do...
                      "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

                        Yeah, yeah I know. But Pierce wants a veteran star, no?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

                          Originally posted by tadscout View Post
                          Yeah, I think this makes Ainge desperate enough to trade Jefferson, 5th and change for JO just to make sure the Celtics are not stuck in rebuilding mode for even more years after having to trade away Pierce...

                          Also that kind of deal would be of good enough quality Larry would do it, Jefferson is good enough talent plus the 5th, I don't think Larry would see this as rebuilding, but as a retooling, like what he says he wants to do...
                          I don't think we could ask for the fifth pick too. I think they should use it to get another vet (a la the Rockets and Shane Battier with the #8 pick). If we could get Gerald or even Tony Allen included, that would be cool. And you know what, we'll take Sebastian off their hands no problem.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

                            i tend to think it'll be easier to part with pierce than jefferson. the celtics have west, rondo, jefferson, perkins, gomes, green, allen, powe that have been developing and so they have quite an exciting core to play with. i think boston fans would be as accepting as we are (probably more so) to see their 'star' go. i think they'll get better offers than what we have for pierce. pierce asking to go to the pacers might or might not make a difference.
                            This is the darkest timeline.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: ESPN says Pierce will demand a trade

                              If we deal for Pierce, we're officially abandoning the youth movement, and Boston would want it.

                              Granger, Ike, Foster, and Quis for PP is probably the best deal we could offer them.

                              Murphy
                              JO
                              Williams
                              Pierce
                              Tinsley

                              I'm honestly not sure if that would excite me or not. Sure, a JO/PP combo would be brilliant, but would also be surrounded by a BUNCH of iffy players.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X