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

Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

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

  • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

    So you guys really think you trade KG for TD, and he'd have won 4 out of the last 9, with basically 3 different teams, where he was the only guy there the whole time? You think that's "easy"?

    I wholeheartedly disagree.

    [edit] I'll tell you what, if Duncan was on those Minny teams, nobody would be talking about Spree and Cassell and not making the playoffs.
    Last edited by Kegboy; 06-27-2007, 12:16 PM.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment


    • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

      Trade JO for KG straight-up, and the Timberwolves and Pacers are still middle-of-the-pack teams. But even though the east is inferior to the west, its still more physical. Net-net, I don't see either team improving in a straight-up trade of KG and JO. The Pacers' upgrade from JO to KG in talent/skills would be offset by the softer play.

      To be fair, Duncan was given a team one season away from 60+ wins and a WCF appearance that was plagued by injuries to D-Rob (missed 76 games), Rifleman (missed 82 games), Elliot and other forward (name escapes me at the moment) all missed over half the season. Take a WCF team and then take away their starting C (D-Rob), starting PF (Chuck) and starting SF (Elliot) and their first front court player off the bench (was it Charles Smith?) and you'll have a lottery team that bounces back to contention quickly. Even if they trade Person for Steve Kerr to make room for Duncan in the rotation. (And yes, even I as president of the Chuck Person fan club would make *that* trade.)
      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: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

        Now, Jay, remember everything wasn't great for Duncan. He lost out on getting coached by Bob Hill and had to deal with that yo-yo Popovich instead.

        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

          Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
          Give KG those casts, and he has championships. Give JO those casts, he probably has a ring too.
          That makes no sense whatsoever. How do you know KG would have rings but JO, who has had marginally more postseason success, gets a "probably".

          That's wacky.
          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: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

            Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
            Now, Jay, remember everything wasn't great for Duncan. He lost out on getting coached by Bob Hill and had to deal with that yo-yo Popovich instead.

            I used to hate Pop for that, but over the past few years Pop has grown on me and I think he's a stand-up guy.

            Things change, that's how I live my life now.
            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: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

              Originally posted by Jay View Post
              Trade JO for KG straight-up, and the Timberwolves and Pacers are still middle-of-the-pack teams. But even though the east is inferior to the west, its still more physical. Net-net, I don't see either team improving in a straight-up trade of KG and JO. The Pacers' upgrade from JO to KG in talent/skills would be offset by the softer play.
              Depending on when you do your KG for JO trade I'm not sure we could say what you said with any certainty. If the trade would've been done anytime during JO's existing contract I believe KG would have made much more of a difference for us than JO. In fact, our post brawl team (for the end of season) might've been much more interesting with KG over JO.

              JO doesn't make players around him better. He in fact, holds them back. Blame the coach... blame the player... I don't care at this point. I just want that era to end and we move on (And I do blame JO). OTOH, I think KG would've made the Pacers a much more dangerous team, even without Artest. He would've made the other players better with his passing and more dangerous FG percentage and smarter play.

              The more this team has become "JO's team" the more they've slid into the abyss. I would be fine with a straight swap of the two even now to see how better team ball could do with a smarter centerpiece (KG) over JO.

              -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: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                Not sure which thread to put this in since the trade winds (so to speak) keep changing, but...

                I got this from a poster at LakersGround board who read it on ESPN NBA Rumor Central:

                Deals Just Talk
                Jun 27 - The Celts have nothing working for Shawn Marion, and if Phoenix gets into the top 10 in the draft, it won't be through Boston. And the C's have had no part of any four-team trade discussions.

                According to involved sources, the C's were asked about their interest in Jermaine O'Neal, but that conversation ended when the words "Al" and "Jefferson" were spoken by the Pacers. That means anything heard about Jefferson and the fifth overall pick going out and O'Neal coming back is preposterous.

                The Celts would have some interest in O'Neal at a different price, but they are not going to alter their main core significantly to get him.
                "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                Comment


                • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                  Originally posted by blanket View Post
                  Not sure which thread to put this in since the trade winds (so to speak) keep changing, but...

                  I got this from a poster at LakersGround board who read it on ESPN NBA Rumor Central:

                  According to involved sources, the C's were asked about their interest in Jermaine O'Neal, but that conversation ended when the words "Al" and "Jefferson" were spoken by the Pacers. That means anything heard about Jefferson and the fifth overall pick going out and O'Neal coming back is preposterous.

                  The Celts would have some interest in O'Neal at a different price, but they are not going to alter their main core significantly to get him.
                  I'm sorry...but if TPTB think that they can get AlJeff for JONeal....I even think that is too much to ask. I'm not surprised that the Cs hung up the phone once they heard "Al Jef...".
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    I'm sorry...but if TPTB think that they can get AlJeff for JONeal....I even think that is too much to ask. I'm not surprised that the Cs hung up the phone once they heard "Al Jef...".
                    True, but ya gotta start somewhere in trade negotiations. The real item of note in this article is that the two teams are talking and Boston does have some interest in JO.

                    If we can't get a deal done with LA, I think a deal with Boston (even one that doesn't include Jefferson) is a good backup plan -- probably better than what we might get from an Atlanta deal, too.
                    "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                    -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                      Originally posted by blanket View Post
                      True, but ya gotta start somewhere in trade negotiations. The real item of note in this article is that the two teams are talking and Boston does have some interest in JO.

                      If we can't get a deal done with LA, I think a deal with Boston (even one that doesn't include Jefferson) is a good backup plan -- probably better than what we might get from an Atlanta deal, too.
                      Exactly. Start the bidding high and work down from there.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        JO doesn't make players around him better. He in fact, holds them back. Blame the coach... blame the player... I don't care at this point. I just want that era to end and we move on (And I do blame JO). OTOH, I think KG would've made the Pacers a much more dangerous team, even without Artest. He would've made the other players better with his passing and more dangerous FG percentage and smarter play.
                        KG has certainly shown a tremendous ability to make his teammates better over the years.

                        Oh, wait.

                        No he hasn't. This is preposterous.

                        If you wouldn't go to all ends of the earth to bash JO, I wouldn't have to work so hard to defend him more than he deserves.

                        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: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                          "Making players around him better" is one of the phoniest concepts in the history of the NBA.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                            Originally posted by bread View Post
                            Exactly. Start the bidding high and work down from there.
                            we won't be getting jefferson. i think we'll trade for paul pierce before we trade for al jefferson - but if we don't ask we're idiots. i think the ratliff, szczerbiak, west, green, #5 for o'neal and tinsley would be reasonable for both sides though.
                            This is the darkest timeline.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                              I agree that we would not be getting AlJef. And I would be ok with getting that trade for JO and Tins if we can't get any LA deal.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                                Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                                we won't be getting jefferson. i think we'll trade for paul pierce before we trade for al jefferson - but if we don't ask we're idiots. i think the ratliff, szczerbiak, west, green, #5 for o'neal and tinsley would be reasonable for both sides though.
                                You just cannot make that deal. Regardless of what you think of JO, he is still a 19/9 big. You have to get at least one big that will actually play back in return. That deal is two expiring contracts, two guards and a pick that everyone hopes turns into a PG. And we don't even get their best PG prospect in Rondo, but rather the players that they are looking to move. Before anyone brings up Green's "potential," I think that his draft-night hype has been proven incorrect by now. I realize that I may overvalue JO, but that is way undervaluing him. I think that we should just keep JO if that is the best that we can get for him, regardless of my desire for a new toy tomorrow night.

                                BTW, has anyone stopped to consider that trading JO for a PG is like trading your car for gas? The reason that you need a PG is to better run the offense to use JO more effectively. Without JO, you need to replace the #1 option, not get a point guard to set up the role players that we will be left with. Name me the last time that a team has won the title with a PG not named Magic as the primary scoring option.
                                Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
                                http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X